fetishistic approach to culture, such as rites, figures of worship, and artifacts, or in the narrow sense of the terms, ritualistic events and religious practices.
While shooting
I was both moved by the richness of the villagers' living spaces, and made aware of the difficulty of bringing on screen the different attitudes about dwelling implied. This was how the idea of making another film first appealed to me.
was shot three years later across six countries of West Africa, while
involved five regions across Senegal.
takes individual subjectspeople, actions, objectsand provides various perspectives on them;
enlarges the scope. You deal with a general topicdomestic living spacesand explore its particular manifestations in one geographic area after another. And your view of particular spaces is enlarged too: you pan across a given space from different distances and angles (in
the camera is generally still, though you filmed from different still positions). There's a tendency to move back and forth across the space in different directions to rediscover it over and over in new contexts.
That is very close to how I felt in making
. Although I would say that the procedure is somewhat adverse (even while keeping a multiplicity of perspectives) rather than analogous, the immediate perception is certainly that of an enlarged scope, physically speaking, not only because of the duration of the film and the variety of cultural terrains it traverses, but also, as you point out, because ot its visual treatment. In
I avoided going from one precise point to another in the cinematography. I was not preoccupied with depicting space. But when you shoot architecture and the spaces involved, you are even more acutely aware of the limit of your camera and how inadequate the fleeting pans and fractured still images used in
are, in terms of showing spatial relationships.
One of the choices I made was to have many pans, but
smooth pans, and none that could give you the illusion that you're not looking through a frame. Each pan sets into relief the rectangular delineation of the frame. It never moves obliquely, for example.
It's always horizontal . . .
Or vertical.
And it's always referring back to you as an individual filmmaker behind the camera. It never becomes this sort of Hitchcock motion through space that makes the camera feel so powerful.
In someone else's space I cannot just roam about as I may like to. Roaming about with the camera is not value-free; on the contrary, it tells us much about the ideology of such a technique.
It's interesting too that the way you pan makes clear that
Page 364
the only thing we're going to find out about you personally is that you're interested in this place. Much hand- held camerawork is implicitly autobiographical, emotionally self-expressive. In your films camera movement is
autobiographical except in the sense that it reveals you were in this place with these people for a time.
There are many ways to treat the autobiographical. What is autobiographical can often be very political, but not everything is political in the autobiographical. One can do many things with elements of autobiography. However, I appreciate the distinction you make because in the realm of generalized media colonization, my films have too often been described as 'personal film,' as 'personal documentary' or 'subjective documentary.' Although I accept these terms, I think they really need to be problematized, redefined, and expanded. Because personal in the context of my films does
mean an individual standpoint or the foregrounding of a self. I am not interested in using film to 'express myself' but rather to expose the social self (and selves)that necessarily mediates the making as well as the viewing of the film.
'Personal,' 'subjective' suggest that something else is impersonal and objective.
Right. As if anyone can produce objective documentary. There is nothing objective and truly impersonal in filmmaking, although there can be a formulaic, cliched approach to film. What you often have is a mere abiding by the conventions of documentary practice, which is put forward as
'objective' way to document other cultures. It is as if the acknowledgement of the politics of the documentation and the documenting subject disturbs the interests of the guardians of norms.
In
we're inside the dwellings as much as we're outside. In fact, the movement from outside to inside, and vice versa, seems central to the film.
