Customer Reviews

Experimental Ethnography: The Work of Film in the Age of Video

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I have to agree with all of the reviews here, in some way. On the one hand, Russell DOES fall victim to a kind of flowery, ambiguous language. Like many of us who tend to write about art or film or whatever, Russell tends to get carried away with her theories and they become very self-enclosed the farther they go. BUT, I think this book is extremely useful in many ways. It really sets up the stakes for "postmodern" (ugh) ethnography and situates its filmic manifestation within our present situation. Her argument is brilliant when it shows how these questions of representation are implicit within almost any ethnographic film. On the one hand, don't read this as gospel (i dont think Russell is the kind of critic who would want you to). On the other, it is undeniable that this book is an important addition to film studies.

I had to write this review as Amazon is a place where millions of people buy their books and unfortunately see idiotic reviews such have been offered here before me and this affects the sales of the book. I felt I must defend Russel's book which is an excellent overview of the evolving state of the ethnographic film beyond its roots in anthropological observation. To appreciate this book, one needs to have a few tools to understand some of her ideas, such as the history of the documentary film and its authority over what is to be considered 'real' and 'true' in human experience. This is a book for people interested in a more intuitive exploration of the documentary genre.

You can't follow the thread of Catherine Russell's argument; you can only pretend to, whether you're posturing for stuck-up film theory boyz or forced to "identify the central concepts" in film class. Just read one of her sentences, and then ask yourself, "What is she trying to say?" I'll start you off: "Viola's use of video is informed by an existentialist theory of medium specificity. His treatment of possession is thus ontological and in many ways a more successful version of the 'cine-transe' imagined by Rouch" (234). Over 300 pages of such absurd drivel make this book unreadable. Don't read it passively--question every word, every invented phrase, every name she drops. Her goal is to sound creative and learned ("the cartography of modern culture" *is* a neat phrase), but are we really impressed? No. Well-written books give you plenty of ideas for your time. This crazy offal just gives you one: film theory is utterly pointless.

on anything that he/she cannot comprehend. I am writing this review primarily to combat the effect that embittered incompetence can have on the artist/intellectual's fair chance to be heard by someone willing to put in a little effort. That said, I now confess I haven't purchased this book or read it in it's entirety. What I have read gave me a run for my money in trying to follow it's over all point. This does not mean something is wrong with the book, thought, or the theory. It means I was challenged by it. (This is a good thing!) What i was able to glean proved to be a fascinating look into the relationship(s) between man and reality, and man and cinema's reality. NOT a casual once-in-a-while read.