Them and Me

(a theoretical reflection)

Stephane Breton’s movie, Them and Me (2001), was very interesting to watch, but it annoyed me quite a lot. At first sight, I felt extremely uncomfortable with how the narrator talked about the tribe, starting from the title, “Them and me”, and the way Breton constantly referred to the people in the movie as ‘them’. It felt impersonal, somewhat dehumanised and infantilised, as if those people were a spectacle for Breton to watch. Not to mention the money, the controversial relationships with the people, and so on. Later on the movie, my opinion started to slightly change, as Breton would develop more intimate relations with the members of the tribe, and the way Breton described himself. He expressed many times how annoying he was to the tribe. I am still not quite sure how I feet about the movie though. It feels like it was done with a lot of sensibility, but on the hand, the mere presence of the narration removes, in a way, the voice of the people he was studying. The film felt more like Breton was reading his field notes, and expressing a lot of what he felt during his time there, then a movie about a tribe in Papua New Guinea. At the same time, having this narration helped understand his journey, his struggles, how hard it was to learn the language, to gain their trust, and so on. So I do feel a bit conflicted, because if the narration was the only problem, I would be OK with it, however, there were way more problematic parts than only that. His position as a ‘shopkeeper’, the money he handed to children, the way in which he communicated with the tribe and so on.

The issue of ‘reality’, often discussed in class, occurred to me after reading MacDougall’s text. Although I initially felt uncomfortable with the narration, it did add to the element of reality, although ‘reality’ is never achievable. The presence of the anthropologist is acknowledged in this movie. It is undeniable that someone with a camera walking around will have an impact on the people being observed, so why not make that clear? In a way, it reminded me of Chronicle of a Summer, due to the very clear presence of the filmmakers. The difference here is that Rouch’s movie did not contain a narration.

MacDougall claims that the ethnographic film must make a disclaimer about the subjectivity contained in it, and Breton’s movie achieves this very well. We are under no impression that this movie is portraying the life of those people, it is very clear from the beginning that it is the tribe’s life, but directly influenced by Breton’s presence.

I still feel quite conflicted. I believe this movie excels in presenting the experience of an anthropologist in the field, and how the life of their subjects is influenced by his presence. But, like I said before, it also felt like the movie was more about Breton himself, than the subjects, and still has many many problematic and ethical issues.