ciné-trance: Rouch was profoundly influenced by the Russian filmmaker of the 1920's, Dziga Vertov. Vertov created his own theory of film in response to what he believed the camera was capable of and, in doing so, invented a sort of anatomy of film: the "ciné-eye" (the camera), the "ciné-ear" (the radio), the ciné-truth (the unique art/truth which could emerge only through film). For Vertov, the reality that the camera was able to perceive was categorically different from that of its human counterpart.

Rouch picked up on Vertov's language and used the term ciné-trance to describe the creative state which the observer-filmmaker was able to reach in certain moments of filming. Rouch describes the ciné-trance: "For me then, the only way to film is to walk with the camera, taking it where it is most effective and improvising another type of ballet with it... it is a matter of training, mastering reflexes as would a gymnast. Thus instead of using the zoom, the cameraman-director can really get into the subject. Leading or following a dancer, priest, or craftsman, he is no longer himself, but a mechanical eye accompanied by an electronic ear. It is this strange state of transformation that takes place in the filmmaker that I have called, analogously to possession phenomena, 'ciné-trance'" (Ciné-Ethnography, 39).

back to top

cinéma vérité: (literal translation: film-truth) This term was originally coined by Russian filmmaker Dziga Vertov (in Russian: kinopravda). It is used to describe the documentary filmmaking style that emerged in the 1960's, in large part thanks to the technical innovations that freed the camera from its cumbersome accouterments of the past. The cinéma vérité movement is characterized by the following features: a handheld camera, synchronous sound, the lack of a formal script and a certain spontaneity.

While many people mistake the label as a claim to pure objectivity or positivist truths, Rouch understood the term cinéma-vérité as the desire to capture the complexity and multiplicity of reality through the particularity of cinema. Rouch writes: "For me, however, kinopravda... designates not 'pure truth' but the particular truth of the recorded images and sounds - a filmic truth" (Ciné-Ethnography, 99). And, in an interview with Enrico Fulchignoni, Rouch states: "With the ciné-eye and the ciné-ear, we recorded in sound and image a ciné-vérité, Vertov's kinopravda. This does not mean the cinema of truth, but the truth of cinema."(Ciné-Ethnography, 167)

Because of the potential for mis-interpretation - the 'truth' of cinéma-vérité being often mistaken for a positivist claim to truth - Rouch eventually came to call his style cinéma direct.

back to top

Direct Cinema: Direct Cinema is another name for the documentary filmmaking movement of the 1960's - also known as cinéma-vérité - which was fueled by the development of certain technologies that drastically changed the practice of filmmaking. Rouch's usage of the term cinéma direct, however, varies markedly from the movement that Americans came to refer to as Direct Cinema.

Rouch used the term cinéma direct to free himself from the implicit claim to truth in the French term, cinéma-vérité. For Rouch, however, these two terms had essentially the same meaning. During the 1960's, thanks to emerging technologies filmmakers were able to record events in an entirely novel way. For Rouch this meant that the contact between filmmaker and his/her subject would be portrayed in a new, more intimate manner; it meant the opportunity to get closer to his subjects. The cinéma direct movement was a chance for the now liberated filmmaker to bring out the truth of what he was filmming. But for Rouch this claim to truth was more poetic than literal.

The term Direct Cinema also caught on in the United States. But, whereas Rouch sought to have emergent technologies implicate the filmmaker in new ways, American documentary filmmakers were using these technologies as a way to "disappear." Direct Cinema in the States is known for its "fly on the wall" approach and its attempt to document reality while minimizing the impact of the filmmaker's presence and remaining as unobtrusive as possible.

back to top

Ethno-fiction: Rouch did not believe in a strict delineation between fiction and non-fiction films. He writes, "For me, as an ethnographer and filmmaker, there is almost no boundary between documentary film and films of fiction"(Ciné-Ethnography, 185). Rouch recognized that cinematic objectivity was ephemeral; a camera was bound to change the kind of interactions he could have with the world around him. Given this necessity, Rouch saw nothing contradictory in the idea of employing narrative techniques in his ethnographic films. This practice has come to be known as ethno-fiction.

In films like Jaguar (1955) and Moi, un noir (1958), Rouch used fiction techniques in order to bring out certain truths. Through loosely constructed narratives the "characters" in his films could "act" out scenes that were true to the feel of their lives. This method gives his viewers glimpses into a reality that is incontestable and access to a "truth" that is both poignant and present. Paul Stoller writes, "In this way Rouch uses creative license to 'capture' the texture of an event, the ethos of lived experience" (The Cinematic Griot, 143).

Rouch also used narrative techniques to impose some sort of structure on the huge amounts of information contained in his images. In this way he was able to render the ethnographic data that his films contain both digestable and poetic, as opposed to pedantic. If we take The Lion Hunters (1965), for example, we see that Rouch organized the film into a narrative structure much like a bedtime story for children. Through this technique Rouch preserves the mystic quality of the hunt for the viewer and enables us to stand in awe of what we are witnessing.

back to top

participating camera: In addition to Dziga Vertov, Rouch was also deeply impacted by the work of American filmmaker Robert Flaherty and, more specifically, his film about life amongst the Inuits - Nanook of the North. Originally an explorer, Flaherty spent a great deal of time with the Inuits before making Nanook and had come to admire and appreciate their lifestyle. As a result of this admiration, Flaherty wanted to record more than his personal and limited vision of their lives so he arranged for the Inuits to view the film, as he was making it, in order to incorporate their suggestions into his depiction of their lives. With Nanook, Flaherty “began a tradition of participatory filmmaking that continues today”(Jay Ruby, Picturing Culture, 91).

Rouch believed this type of joint venture was the only way to make a valid ethnographic film. The first time Rouch screened his film Bataille sur le grand fleuve (1951) to the hunters who were portrayed in the film, they gave him several suggestions which he, in turn, incorporated into his final version of the film. Rouch realized that in order to have a somewhat accurate portrayal of those he was filming, he needed to integrate their visions and experiences into the film.

A participating camera is a camera with a multiplicity of viewpoints, a camera that opens itself up to the ideas of others and one that spawns a product that is a result of direct communication with those it has been filming.

back to top

shared anthropology: (also referred to as reflexive anthropology) Rouch's films partake in the practice of shared anthropology in various ways. First, having been influenced by the technique of Robert Flaherty, Rouch believed that feedback was a necessary ingredient in filmmaking. Rouch would often screen the films he made to the subjects of his film and, based upon their comments, would change his film in order to incoporate their suggestions. This was an important practice for Rouch because he believed in the necessity of collaboration in order to come to a just portrait of his subjects. He states: "This type of participatory research, as idealistic as it may seem, appears to me to be the only morally and scientifically feasible anthropological attitude today" (Ciné-Ethnography, 44).

Second, Rouch was interested in the way his presence - as a documentary filmmaker - changed the events he was witnessing. As opposed to shying away from the reality that his presence added another dimension to the events in question, he attempted to understand what his role as observer/filmmaker was. This attempt is clearly articulated in his essay "Vicissitudes of the Self." In this essay he explores his role within his films and how, as a filmmaker, he functioned as a catalyst in certain possession ceremonies. Rouch writes, "It is a strange kind of choreography, which, if inspired, makes the cameraman and soundman no longer invisible but participants in the ongoing event" (Ciné-Ethnography, 99). In this way Rouch recognized that he was participating in the events, not just recording them.

Lastly, Rouch attempted to share his filmmaking knowledge with the subjects of his films. As a result, Rouch trained several Africans who would go on to become filmmakers. This kind of exchange seemed natural to Rouch who hoped that, as a result, Africans would be able to find a cinematic voice of their own. "One solution I propose to [cultural ownership] is to train the people with whom you work to be filmmakers. I don't think it's a complete answer, but it has merits in that it leaves the people with something rather than just taking from them" (Ciné-Ethnography, 221).

Through these methods, Rouch was able, perhaps more than any other ethnographic filmmaker, to create a cinema that was based on collaboration and participation. It would take several generations for the rest of the anthropological world to catch up with him and it is likely that it will take several more before anyone is able to match the scope of his undertaking.

back to top