Trinh Minh-Ha’s 1983 film Reassemblage acts in two ways; firstly to communicate an understanding of people in Senegal and secondly, most importantly actually, to comment on conventional documentary methods. Just as Kiss Kiss Bang Bang participated in an auto-critique of film genres, Reassemblage participates in an auto-critique of documentary film. The difference however is that the former does so through narrative/story and the latter does so by means of enunciation/discourse. In "When I Project it is Silent" a written interview with Trinh, she describes how the “strategies of Reassemblage question the anthropological knowledge of the “other,” the way anthropologists look at and present foreign cultures through media, here film” (228).Her methods challenge audiences and filmmakers alike to broaden their scope of understanding cultures outside of the established documentary norms.
Trinh's work actually lets the viewing of this culture happen without a preconceived storyline or ideology guiding the actions of those in the film, the intentions of the music, or camera movements and angles. Her methods are free and natural. They come across as such with shots that seem too close or too far, multiple jump cuts within singular instances, silence at times, and music that matches the actions in others. Even her narration is unorthodox. She speaks softly with her words sometimes repetitive and having little to do with the actions of the film at that moment. Take this clip for instance.
Trinh says “one of the intentions of my film is to suggests that you don’t know a culture better by approaching it with an institutionalized or professionalized background” (229). As shown in this clip, would an audience really know this Senegalese culture better if they knew what each of the men were making or what the children were doing? Do descriptions of cultural artifacts make a culture? Is it possible to observe a culture and learn as much from that objective observation as one would with guided commentary and narration? These are questions that Trinh wants audiences to ask themselves before approaching documentary films. She says in the clip that “reality is delicate” and there is a “habit of imposing a meaning to every single sign”. Perhaps her unfamiliar methods seek to avoid attaching a prescribed meaning to the culture that accompanies traditional documentary strategies.
In order to free audiences from the customary ethnographic expectations, they must first understand that there is more than one way to view and understand a culture. Much knowledge about both these Senegalese people and documentary discourse can be gained from watching this film. Experimental discourse, like that which Reassemblage exhibits, may be the only way to accomplish the goal of demonstrating the usefullness of, and increasing the receptiveness of documentary films that do not follow conventional methods.
The clip you posted has several examples of Trin Minh Ha's critique of traditional documentary style. At around 2:40, we see a scene of a man working. The film then cuts to several, successive, zoomed out shots of the same scene. This rapid edits make it very clear that a foreign agent, the filmmaker with a camera, is recording the scene. The camera is not an invisible, impartial recorder of the situation. Similarly, at the end of the clip, we see children playing in a circle. The film appears to cut out segments of the child's motion. This is not done to save or compress time, there is no functional reason for this cut. Instead, Trin Minh Ha wants to continuously remind the audience that they are watching a documentary, an artificial scene framed specifically by the camera.
ReplyDeleteBased on the interview, the film is not just critiquing ethnographic films, but also anthropology as a field. Since going to the village itself and observing without the camera intermediary is also criticized, I'm not sure if any "objective" anthropology is permitted - which is probably Trin Minh Ha's point anyway. Does she want me to gain any knowledge about Senegalese women from the film? As an American, does she think I can every get any such knowledge of the "other"?
Interesting blog, Katrina. I like how you've tied in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang to our discussion of story and discourse--it's a great example for comparison. And I confess, I certainly like it more than Reassemblage. I could have to that to you the first 5 minutes into Reassemblage. But now, as you've pointed out, I think I know why. You ask if the audience would know the culture better if they knew what the men were making or what the children were doing. Certainly, the answer is no. But it drives me crazy (!!) not to know. What do they make, and what becomes of them? I need to know this--what to expect and what actually happens--or so I believed. I think this is the reflection of the differences of the cultures/production styles. For Westerners, much like myself, the issue is not that we don't know what the product is of the labor or action, but that we simply don't know. In lacking this knowledge, we move outside of our culture into unfamiliar territory. A taste of Senegalese culture? Probably, granted their lack of technology and limited access to world knowledge. More importantly, it's a reflection of us and our media expectations. We read books and watch films to enjoy what is before, but ultimately to know the result. We are a product driven culture, from our everyday lives to our films (a product of our culture). When our world gets turned topsy-turvy, it is the lack of knowledge that makes us uncomfortable. Can we rectify this? I, for one, don't know. Maybe I'll google it to find out.
ReplyDeleteFirst thought: Is that Yoko Ono in the photo?
ReplyDeleteSecond thought: Awesome blog!
Silliness aside, Katrina, I love the contrast you make between Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Reassemblage. That contrast of auto-critique, via narrative/story in the former and enunciation/discourse in the latter, is a great point and a very astute observation.
Also, I agree with your point that Trinh is trying show that documentary filmmakers, as well as audiences, should avoid giving meaning to every minute detail of a civilization's culture. Thinking of this film reminded me of the Discovery Channel and all the documentaries they show of other civilizations. I always found them fascinating and eye-opening. They explored a people I had never heard of. At the same time, however, I see now how they imposed a Westernized view onto the filming. Every image showed how they were similar or different to our culture, instead of just simply showing the culture.
Nevertheless, I cannot say I appreciated Reassemblage as much as the Discovery channel documentaries because I do not feel like I got much insight into their world. Trinh might have been trying to challenge our perceptions but I'm not sure it was as successful as Kiss Kiss in doing so.
I have to agree with Bel on this one. I think Trinh does an excellent job of critiquing (read, CRITICISING) the documentary format, as well as righteously goading the documentarian establishment into some much-needed and very justified reforms. Trinh essentially does for documentary films what the Daily Show with Jon Stewart does for network news; that is, calling them out on their on insufficiencies and BS.
ReplyDeleteHowever, unlike the Daily Show, I feel like Trinh missed an excellent opportunity to show the viewer what the "right" kind of documentary might be. It's not enough, I think, simply to tell the viewer "Look! See how ridiculous documentary films are?" without additionally saying "Now, THIS is what documentary films should be!"
While Trinh does an excellent job of discovering and pointing out the glaring insufficiencies of film, her new-age "Reassemblage" does not replace the documentary as a narrative or informative media, and in my opinion makes no attempts to. I did not come out of "Reassemblage" knowing anything about Seneghalese society that I could not just as easily have learned from the documentaries Trinh is trying to desperately to lampoon.
Maybe this is just me being picky, but I really feel that it is easy to criticize a tradition or establishment, but it is much harder to criticize and promote a newer (and much improved) alternative to the system you are attempting to have replaced. If Trinh felt so strongly that documentary films were outmoded and missing the mark, then perhaps she might've spent even a moment or two of her piece showing a shot of what "Documentary Should Be."
But then, again, here I am criticizing Trinh, without having any hard replacements or back-up of my own. Yay, self-defeating arguments!
"Art is life, and Life is but hypocrisy."