Author:Maria Vivod (UMR 7367 Strasbourg France)
Paper short abstract:
Montage appears to be inevitable; the filming is limited by conditions such as the time and the space, by the vision field of the camera. A set of 'rules'- happening in the laboratory - influences the 'final cut'. What are the levels of montage? What are its traps or advantages?
Paper long abstract:
The full objectivity seems to be impracticable during an ethnographic film making - as J. Vigo pointed out, the documentary is in every case a "documented point of view". The images are destined not only to the scientific community but also as a 'feedback' (J.Rouch) to the filmed individual or group. During the montage the author should chose the images which are entering in the 'final cut'. The final cut influences directly the understanding (and the 'misunderstanding') of his work by the public and his 'subjects'. The montage appears to be a way of communication which transmits a kind of 'message' - so what is to be kept and what is to be left out? What is to be transmitted to the viewer? The 'story-creation' is one of the 'dangers' of this procedure. Then again, some elements which could be important for the understanding of this 'message' could be left out…
Which are the images that the author can cut out and how to do it?
I would like to analyze examples taken from my fieldwork experience: through the examples I will explain the choice of my filmed subjects, and how I have selected the 'right' sequences for the final cut. What guided my choices? Which were the critics of my fellow colleagues? I will also mention some of the feedbacks, the reactions obtained from the filmed individuals or communities after showing them the final cut.
Transcultural montage: the uses of filmic montage in conveying diversity and mutuality