Wreckage upon Wreckage

Paula Rabinowitz, “Wreckage upon Wreckage: History, Documentary and the Ruins of Memory,” History and Theory 32.2 (1993): pp. 119-137.

This article is a good summary of theoretical underpinnings of documentary-making. It is very useful for pointing out the origins of a documentary – really thinking about the importance of truth and honesty in its separation from many other forms of communication. By focusing on the differences between video and documentary and film and theater and writing, Rabinowitz eventually shows that they are all different ways of communicating a story. But of all of these, the documentary has been considered the most reliable transfer of information across recent history. This theory is systematically torn down by the author who kindly reminds us of the subjectivity inherent in documentaries as much as all the others.

This article's best strength is its way of saying quite obvious things, very elegantly. For this reason, I will include a smattering of my favorite quotes. At the end, I include an overall reflection of the article.

“Not only does it seek to reconstruct historical narrative, but it often functions as an historical document itself. These strategies are based on a desire to enlist the audience in the process of historical reconstruction. The documentary film differentiates itself from narrative cinema by claiming its status as a truth-telling mode. However, as a filmic construction, it relies on cinematic semiosis to convince its audience of its validity and truth. By looking at the history of documentary address, this essay outlines the rhetoric of persuasion and evaluates its effectiveness.”

“The historical documentary not only tells us about the past, but asks us to do something about it as well-to act as the Angel of History and redeem the present through the past.”

"From a historian's point of view," writes Sonya Michel, "these privileged subjects can become problematic if a film limits its perspective by relying on them as sole or even primary informants. While oral history subjects are frequently both engaging and uniquely informative, their accounts of historical events or periods can be partial, fragmentary, idio-syncratic and sometimes deliberately or unintentionally miseading."Testimony is always a partial truth, so when filmmakers authorize their subjects to speak and thus provoke their audiences to act, it can only be a supplementary gesture towards truth. syncratic "Testimony is always a partial truth, so when filmmakers authorize their subjects to speak and thus provoke their audiences to act, it can only be a supplementary gesture towards truth.

“This desire to dream, to provoke imagination, seems to lead the documentary away from the realm of history and truth into the realm of art and artifice. In documentary the viewer is asked to participate in a series of contracts -between film and its object, between filmmaker and audience, between reality and representation.”

Reflections

Video is communication. A very rich form of communication with an access level that is steadily dropping to the rungs of the common person. Even in rural Peru people have TV's. In fact, many of them would see the value in purchasing a $150 FlipCam - but unfortunately they are not available there. All electronics, in fact, are quite expensive and/or unavailable. In a country where we have it all, we often forget that the existence of technologies hanging low for us, may be out of sight for most of the world.

This whole discussion on the depth of historical documentary as a communication channel across cultures and time is very cool. As long as we keep in mind that everything we are watching is made to produce a response rather than portray a reality of truth, than we can learn great things from documentaries including historical facts.

I do like, however, how this article reminds the film-maker to at least make honest films. They will by definition be subjective and always a representation rather than a recreation, but its important to strive to tell an honest story when it comes to historical documentation. That is why collaborators from different perspectives, or non-biased perspectives working on such a documentation process would be preferred in my humble viewing opinion.

Videographic Investigation of the communication between reconstruction NGOs and post-disaster communities in Peru

I am studying video as a medium of investigating the communications between reconstruction NGOs (RNGOs) and post-disaster communities because I want find out how RNGOs can learn from this earthquake in order to help my reader understand the possible role of participatory video in facilitating improved feedback.
In August 15th, 2007 a 7.9 magnitude earthquake struck the province of Ica, Peru, uprooting almost 600,000 residents. Two years later the still-recovering region shows a surprising lack of communication between community leaders and reconstruction NGOS (RNGOs). Why, in a time of unprecedented funding and mediums for interaction, are the communication channels between RNGOs and developing post-disaster communities lacking in effectiveness? To answer this theoretical question, an empirical formulation is proposed: How do reconstruction NGOs communicate with the post-earthquake communities of Peru and what are some lessons learned? After scouring relevant post-disaster literature and picking professors’ brains for leads on community-NGO relationships for cutting-edge methodologies for post-disaster reconstruction, few detailed answers were found. To fill in the gaps, a summer of field research was conducted on this topic in a Ica, Peru. The aim was to explore the experiences of disaster-stricken communities by (1) gathering interviews and experiencing NGO community site visits throughout the province and (2) conducting an experimental participatory videography class in one rural town.
Here is where my other research question comes in: How can participatory video facilitate community feedback to NGOs working in post-earthquake rural Peru? All the field research has been done already. All the data has been stored in 600 gigabytes. Through this research, I hope to evaluate the effectiveness of participatory video as we experienced it, research the experiences of others, and finally make recommendations for future undertakings. The use of this footage will be for academic proof as well. The goal is to produce a documentary film to complement the thesis, using our own and Peruvian students’ videos that were made over the summer. To further invoke other opinions, we will screen a student-made documentary for U.S. RNGO affiliates and the MIT community to promote and encourage discussion on participatory community building in disaster stricken areas.

10 Research Questions

1. Why, in a time of unprecedented funding and mediums for interaction, are the communication channels between reconstruction NGOs and developing post-disaster communities lacking in effectiveness?

2. How do reconstruction NGOs communicate with the post-earthquake communities of Peru and what what are some lessons learned?

3. How can participatory video improve the communication between post-earthquake communities and reconstruction NGOs?

4. How can participatory video facilitate community voice in post-earthquake rural Peru?

5. Why have some reconstruction NGOs been received much better by post-earthquake communities in rural Peru?

6. How can appropriate media technologies facilitate improved communications between reconstruction NGOs and post-earthquake communities in Peru?

7. How can community-generated video in underdeveloped international communities be distributed in an ethical and impactful manner?

8. How can participatory video unearth honest feedback from post-earthquake communities in rural Peru?

9. Why is it so difficult for reconstruction NGOs in Peru to obtain honest feedback from the communities they work in?

10. How can video facilitate improved communication between reconstruction NGOs and post-earthquake communities in Peru?

Insights into Participatory Video: Part 1

Insights into Participatory Video: A Handbook for the field p 1-16. (intro and Part 1) by Nick and Chris Lunch

Part 1 Notes – Participatory Video in a Nutshell

The definition of Participatory Video (PV) given by the Lunch author-brothers is as follows: “PV is a set of techniques to involve a group or community in shaping and creating their own film.” This paper aims to provide testimony of recent fieldwork done on PV, and seems to claim that the results have been quite successful. PV is successful because it opens up easy and accessible forums in which to bring people together to discuss, and effectively empowers them to play a lead role in solving their own problems.

"Gaining a broader understanding of the issues that face the poor and vulnerable is always helpful to a donor organization focused on poverty alleviation. Using visual media gives a stronger image of the issues of change facing pastoralists. The approach was beneficial to those involved in the film and the message was stronger because it gave voice to those who are easily sidelined by the community. One of its strengths was that it was able to tie together various different messages that arise in any given community and give a clear message that needed to be heard by the Akimat (regional head)."

-Jeremy Horner, Associate Professional Officer, Department for International Development (p. 15)

A brief history of PV is also included. In 1967, Don Snowden undertook the first known PV experiment in the Fogo Islands off Newfoundland. He pioneered the idea of media to enable a people-centered approach. Using video, fishermen on the islands learned that they were dealing with similar issues and came together to make some changes. Politicians living far away also saw the videos. Since Don, their has been no real movement for PV, only isolated works.

Although PV is very widespread, without one clear way to do things, many applications exist and its success depends on many factors outside of project tasking and schedule reasons. In spite of this, the authors offer the following as a possible template for a well-planned PV project:

1. Participants learn to use video equipment through games and exercise

2. Short messages of videos directed and filmed by participants.

3. Footage shown to community at daily screening

4. (not added in book, but must be?) Final videos shown to community and desired audience elsewhere.

“PV carried out in this way becomes a powerful means of documenting local people's experiences, needs and hopes from their own perspectives. It initiates a process of analysis and change that celebrates local knowledge and practice, whilst stimulating creativity both within and beyond the community. When done well, PV presents the "inside view" in a lively way that is accessible to people at all levels. All community members have equal access to the process. All voices are expressed and heard. The video medium is transportable, easily replicated and easily shared; it thus has a wide "spread effect". PV gives a voice and a face to those who are normally not heard or seen” (p. 12, Lunch)

Participatory video manifests endogenous development, which is development as an outflowing of people's own strategies, resources, and values. Video is transportable and easily replicated and shared by the “wide-spread effect”. PV is good for horizontal and vertical communication. Visuals of PV reach illiterate and young children and cuts across language boundaries. PV Engages, Empowers, clarifies, Amplifies, Catalyses, Equips with skills and optimism, disseminates good practices, and is accessible, inclusive and flexible.

However, the main obstacles to a successful participatory video project include:

-lack of motivation by participants/local community.

-lack of technical equipment or technical issues

-lack of time needed to plan, shoot, or edit

Reflections

Nick and Chris Lunch seem to be the fieldwork Godfathers of participatory video in international communities. Since my work was essentially an extension into a more academic and development research arena, I think the usefulness of this paper will be very useful to my thesis prep and hopefully thesis as well when it is all said and done.

As far as obstacles, we encountered the simple presence of a camera and its know ability to be seen by who knows who makes people very conservative when discussing anything while the red light is on. You might call this “fear of repercussions”.

Development Communication Sourcebook: Intro

Mefalopulos, Paolo. Development communication sourcebook broadening the boundaries of communication. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2008. Print.

Paolo's motivation: "Too often the most important missing element in development programs was genuine (two-way) communication between the decision makers, the experts, and the so-called beneficiaries." Paolo makes the point that communication is much more than transmitting information, it is all about generating new knowledge and consensus in order to facilitate change.

Reflections

The intro is short but says a lot more than what I included above. The author goes on to explain other motivations including his extensive experience working with the oh-s0-renowned DevComm - the development communication branch of the oh-so-bashed World Bank. But, I didn't want to pollute that simple motivation that he listed right at the beginning of his book.

From the intro, I am excited to read what else he has to say, since the book appears to be unique in its claim to comprehensive discussion of the topic of development communication. It will also provide me with the basic understanding of how development communication is different from communication in general. And what is communication?? Wishy-washy, wanna-be....people yaking.