Film Studies Essay 代写 ：人类学与电影的关系分析
人类学适用于电影，特别是，民族志电影不能说是构成一个流派，也不是民族志电影的学科与统一的起源和一个既定的方法。由于民族志电影的第一次会议是在Musee de l'homme举行30年前，这个词曾是象征性的功能，给人一种团结的假象以极其多样化的努力在电影与社会科学。一个经典的民族志电影已经逐渐出现，在过去的十几年中，一个运动已经长大了由基金会赠款，进一步的国际会议，理论出版物和培训计划的滋养。面对定义民族志电影，一些作家如De Brigard（1975）和海德（1976）认为，一个只会说一些电影比其他的民族志，或通过使用民族志电影成为美德，看到值得（1969，1972）。由于所有的电影都是文化的文物，许多人可以告诉我们，许多有关的社会，他们的目的是描述他们的描述。因此，电影可以作为一个社会科学的数据来源的神话，摇滚画，政府论文。从二战开始，小说以及纪录片进行了零星的贝特森人种学的内容（1943），本尼迪克（1946）和（1975）威克兰。在实践中，大多数讨论的民族志电影留出的电影有用的人类学家的天真的文化文件和狭隘的领域，那些有一些明显的意图的记录和揭示的文化模式。一些作家，包括企及（1975）和de Heusch（1962），拒绝进行进一步的区分，认为这样做是为了抑制不同途径的交叉施肥。其他像阿希等人（1973）、（1975）、格里奥勒Leroi Gourhan（1948），麦独孤（19691975），Regnault（1931）和Sorenson（1967）已经指出的分类、功能、或文体类别内的民族志电影。Leroi Gourhan（1948），例如，分领域研究电影，一些民族利益的普通观众的电影，和纯粹的异国情调的意图的电影。阿希等人（1973）所创造的客观记录，脚本拍摄、报道确定大类。然而，往往是最复杂和最有影响力的作品在几个层次上的功能，并公然藐视这样严格的分类。在讨论的领域仍然是有用的一个区别是，民族志镜头和民族志电影之间的一个区别。电影是为向观众展示的结构作品。他们使自己的表现证明这样的陈述的分析。电影在这个意义上说，人类学家的公共作品或任何其他创造性的学术成果或是类似的。另一方面，镜头是出来的原材料，一个相机，没有这样的期望附加到它。它可以与人类学家的田野笔记，可用于多种用途，包括电影制作。
早期的民族志影片
Felix Louis Regnault的工作是和民族志电影胶片早。1895、如果卢米埃尔兄弟举行了世界上第一个公益电影放映的那一年，Regnault拍摄了陶器在巴黎世博ethnographique德是一个女人i'afrique沃洛夫语制作技术。因此，作为民族志电影的电影院一样古老，它本身产生出来的研究装置由Eadweard Muybridge发明的，Etienne Jules Marey的照片，人和动物的运动。Regnault（1895）发布了一款基于他的电影记录的科学论文，其中明确区分目标的那些公司，他们的电影主要是一个商业的新奇。他把相机作为实验室仪器，可以进一步分析瞬态人事件，他问：NT就预言志只会通过这种工具的使用达到一个科学的精度（1895，p. 437）。其化学乳剂的赛璐珞片是
人类学固定介质。商业电影导演像梅里爱和波特很快把公司的电影视觉糖果为叙事媒介。1914爱德华柯蒂斯制作的故事影片由Kwakiutl的演员在真实环境中重建了夸扣特尔，1922罗伯特弗莱厄蒂发布北境女鞋。弗莱厄蒂的作品与柯蒂斯的作品相似，试图重建一种传统文化，但在其他方面是根本不同的。
Film Studies Essay 代写 ：人类学与电影的关系分析
Anthropology when applied to film, specifically, ethnographic films cannot be said to constitute a genre, nor is ethnographic film-making a discipline with unified origins and an established methodology. Since the first conference on ethnographic film was held at the Musee de l'Homme 30 years ago, the term has served a largely emblematic func tion, giving a semblance of unity to extremely diverse efforts in the cinema and social sciences. A canon of ethnographic films has gradually emerged, and in the past dozen years a movement has grown up nourished by foundation grants, further international conferences, theoretical publications, and training programs. Faced with defining ethnographic film, some writers such as De Brigard (1975) and Heider (1976) have concluded that one can only say some films are more ethnographic than others, or that films become ethnographic by virtue of their use, see Worth (1969, 1972). Since all films are cultural artifacts, many can tell us as much about the societies that produced them as about those they purport to describe. Films can thus serve as a source of data for social science in the manner of myths, rock paintings, and government papers. From World War II onwards, fiction as well as documentary films have been studied sporadically for their ethnographic content in Bateson (1943), Benedict (1946) and Weakland (1975). In practice, most discussions of ethnographic film set aside films useful to anthropologists as naive cultural documents and narrow the field to those made with some discernible intention of recording and revealing cultural patterns. Some writers, induding Rouch (1975) and de Heusch (1962), have refused to pursue further distinctions, arguing that to do so is to inhibit the cross-fertilization of varied approaches. Others like Asch et al (1973), Griaule (1975), Leroi-Gourhan (1948), McDougall (1969,1975), Regnault (1931) and Sorenson (1967)have marked out taxonomic, functional, or stylistic categories within ethnographic film. Leroi-Gourhan (1948), for example, has divided the field into research films, general audience films of some ethnographic interest, and films of purely exotic intentions. Asch et al (1973) have created the terms Objective Recording, Scripted Filming, and Reportage to identify broad subcategories. Very often, however, the most complex and influential works function on several levels and defy such strict classification. One distinction that remains useful in discussions of the field is that between ethnographic footage and ethnographic films. Films are structured works made for presentation to an audience. They make manifest within themselves the analysis that justifies such a presentation. Films are analogous in this sense to an anthropologist's public writings or to any other creative or scholarly productions. Footage, on the other hand, is the raw material that comes out of.a camera, and no such expectations attach to it. It can perhaps best be compared to an anthropologist's field notes and may be used for a variety of purposes, including the making of films.
Early Ethnographic Footage
The work of Felix-Louis Regnault stands as the type and earliest example of ethnographic film footage. In 1895, the same year that the Lumiere brothers held the world's first public film screenings, Regnault filmed the pottery-making techniques of a Wolof woman at the Exposition Ethnographique de I'Afrique Occidentale in Paris. Ethnographic film is thus as old as the cinema, which itself arose out of the research apparatus invented by Eadweard Muybridge and Etienne-Jules Marey to photograph human and animal locomotion. Regnault (1895) published a scientific paper based on his film record, which clearly differentiated his aims from those of the Lumieres, for whom film was primarily a commercial novelty. He regarded the camera as a laboratory instrument that could fix transient human events for further analysis, and he wc:nt so far as to predict that ethnography would only attain the precision of a science through the use of such instruments (1895, p. 437). The celluloid strip with its chemical emulsion was to be the
fixing medium of anthropology. Commercial film directors like Melies and Porter soon turned the Lumieres' cinema of visual bonbons into a narrative medium. In 1914 Edward Curtis produced a story film played by Kwakiutl actors in authentically reconstructed Kwakiutl surroundings, and in 1922 Robert Flaherty released Nanook of the North. Flaherty's work resembled Curtis's in its attempt to reconstruct a traditional culture, but in other respects it was
fundamentally different. Flaherty did not emphasize the dramatic conventions that had by this time reached such sophistication in fictional films as noted in Cameron (1975, p.7). His sophistication was of a more conceptual kind. In place of a smoothly running story line is a procession of loosely linked observations, reflecting his fascination with technology and his joy in the revelation of personality through spontaneous behavior. The film becomes a construct of texts about Eskimo life and character, centred around themes of cultural dignity and ingenuity. In contrast to Curtis's film, Nanook is manifestly an exploration of the society itself. The work of Regnault and Flaherty defines alternative tendencies in ethnographic film that have persisted to the present day. For those working in the tradition of Regnault the camera has been regarded primarily as an instrument for gathering cultural data. The process of analysing the data has remained largely external to the footage itself. For Flaherty and his followers, film has not only provided a means of recording human behavior but also of leading the viewer through its intricacies according to some system of communicative logic. Regnault's early work focused upon African movement styles, and for many years the use of research footage was limited to studies of physiology and technological aspects of culture. The breakthrough to new uses
