PROCLAMATION OF THE WINNERS

13.04.2010.

Saturday,10th April, two Prizes have been awarded; for the best student film (Chhau) and for the best film where the author is ethnologist/anthropologist (La Fiuma). ETNOFILm festival was concluded Sunday morning after the presentation of the film workshop. Explanation of the awards given by the selection cometee. Category I – ethnographic TV production No prize awarded: no prizes have been awarded in this category since both films which have entered the official selection have remained only on the level of description, and the cultural context of the phenomena described was only marginally tackled. However, TV production should definitely be classified as a special category of ethnographic visual production and we think that it is important for the future of this and similar festivals for it to be specially evaluated and developed, due to its specificity in relation to the ‘classic’ ethnographic production. Furthermore, given the Croatian example, it is the only ethnographic production available to wider audience and as such influences the public opinion and the general attitude towards ethnographic topics. Category II – ethnologist/anthropologist author She River: The first Prize has been awarded to the film ‘She River’ which stood out from many films which have entered the official selection in several ways. Firstly, the film is ethnographically explicit and focused – the River of Po is placed in the centre of the film story as a kind of guiding principle, the basis of everyday life, a place of cultural conflicts and a motif for the creation of urban legends and stories. The story of the river is intertwined with the stories of peculiar human destinies the river links together, but also with the story of the simple monotony of everyday life which, universally for all of us, flows in one, leisurely, direction, as the river itself. Furthermore, the voices and the standpoints of the main characters are clearly positioned, but so is the voice of the author who is precisely and thoughtfully introducing to us the story of Her – the River, which is simultaneously, and even to a greater extent, the story of Them – the people living on its shores. The film is also characterized with exceptionally good photography and meticulous editing of seemingly unrelated stories which are, in the last sequence of the film, wittily, emotionally and conclusively, in terms of ethnography, combined into unique, likeable and highly contextualized story. Category III – non ethnologist/anthropologist author No prize awarded: Only two films have entered the official selection of the films done by non-ethnologists/anthropologists. Both deal with intriguing, contemporary topics, however, their ethnographic interpretation, in view of understanding the problems present, is insufficiently coherent, even confusing sometimes. The voice of the anthropological ‘Other’ has been divided into many stories which do not make a coherent account (‘Bosnian Blues’), or has been completely omitted (‘Olga and Time’). Even though filmicaly interesting, in their treatment of the subject matter – both in terms of film and ethnography – the films are insufficiently focused on the characters who remain inadequately emphasized as the carriers of the story and the narrative context and rather as voiceless observers of the author’s need to tell the story which, in the final instance, seems to be equally forced upon the characters as to the authors themselves. Category IV – student author Chhau: Even though the author is a student of film and not ethnology/anthropology, the film ‘Chhau’ is ethnographically very successful. Done on the topic of non-Western ethnography, the film is, in all its segments, anthropologically consistent and theoretically grounded. The main theme – seclusion of women from family and community during menstruation, when even in the 21st century they have to live in communal huts separated from the village – is plainly contextualized and left to the characters themselves to present it, unburdened with the author’s potential interpretation of this tradition as ‘weird’ or ‘exotic’. In the same time, dealing with something that is evidently a traditional custom, the film offers a very contemporary reading of this tradition and with full ethical responsibility, explains the reasons ‘for’ and ‘against’, allowing multiple views on one reality. The additional quality of the film is the introduction of activism and advocacy of subaltern rights, in this case, of women in traditional society, which however, are never ideologically imposed, but stand out as new possibilities of the ways of living in the world in which, maybe questionably, liberal individualism surpasses traditional norms; namely, some members of the community do question the justifiability of this traditional discrimination and think of alternative options. However, the film undoubtedly offers the conclusion, even though never explicitly stated, that tradition, changed or differentiated, imposed or chosen, is an integral part of our everyday lives. In this film, subaltern can speak. Special mention: Cheyenne Film ‘Cheyenne’ deserves Special Mention for two reasons. The first is that it approaches a very typical and potentially monotonous ethnological topic, which is sheep breading and the related shepherds’ life, in a very unexpected manner, presenting us with the story of a young thirty-year-old woman who has made her life’s choice to live from tending sheep in contemporary Northern Italy. Unburdened with the way in which the local community potentially perceives Cheyenne, the author introduces us, slowly and assuredly into her world, simultaneously building a clearly structured story. The paradox of the situation, clearly established in the film itself, is that her life with sheep is not a pursue of immediate livelihood, but a realized vision of a happy life. The second reason is that the author, focusing his filmic attention on her expressive face, lets Cheyenne talk about herself and her natural surrounding to crown her story. In one scene, simply and modestly, Cheyenne defines freedom – not as a pamphlet, but as a living experience. The universality of this massage and the film art with which it is expressed are hard to resist. However, the film has not won the award, but a Special Mention, because it says very little about the social and cultural context of the story. This is an excellent documentary, but not an ethnographic film. Special mention: To Silence and Back This film talks about a healing ritual of a state which the members of the local community recognize under the name ‘padavica’ (epilepsy). The procedure, which is always the same, is done by a traditional healer who has inherited the knowledge from his male ancestors. Special Mention is awarded to this film due to the excellent ethnography, coherent, explicit and well-grounded methodology, documented and presented through film language and audiovisual technology. At the very beginning of the film, the author explains his authorial position and then, through an interview with the main character, introduces us to the main elements of the ritual before it even starts, so that later, when it will be presented in the film, we will be able to understand it, since the ritual has to be performed in complete silence. After that, we see the ritual itself, as it was really performed. When the ritual ends, the film also ends since its ethnographic purpose has been fulfilled. This work could be classified as an ethnographic document expressed through film media, hence a product which, in its form, is a borderline case between document and film. As such, it opens up and deepens the questions on the appropriate methodology of the usage of film in ethnology/anthropology. However, it does not use all the means which attribute to films the position of suggestive and intimate narrator and hence – if this is what we expect from an ethnographic film – is not awarded a Prize, but only a Special Mention.