Borrowing a phrase from the distinguished Belgian anthropologist and film-maker, Luc de Heusch, in this chapter I refer to this long period of gestation as the ‘prehistory’ of ethnographic film. Ethnographic film in the form in which it is most frequently encountered today barely existed, even though the first seeds of later developments were evident. Though a large number of films made during this period could be said to possess a certain degree of ‘ethnographicness’ – as defined in the General Introduction to this book – many of these were not produced by academic film-makers, but by commercial production companies, government or colonial agencies, even private individuals. This was a period of tentative beginnings, sporadic activity and blurred genres. The half-century running from the mid-1890s, when moving image camera technology was first developed, to the period of the Second World War in the 1940s constitutes over a third of the total time-span of ethnographic film-making. These films were primarily made forĭocumentation purposes but some anticipated the forms of ethnographicĭocumentary film-making developed after the Second World War. Margaret Mead, who, in collaboration with Gregory Bateson, shot a number ofįilms in Bali and New Guinea. In theġ930s, academic anthropologists in the USA began to make films, notably The Americas, the Soviet Union and Australia were also very active.

Initially particularly by German-speaking anthropologists and, after theįirst World War, by French-speaking film-makers associated with museumsĪnd/or with the French imperial project. Itĭescribes how after initial enthusiasm, film-making among BritishĮthnographers declined markedly though elsewhere it was actively pursued,

Made for academic research, museums or state-funded educational purposes. Rare, though many had ethnographic qualities. Before the Second World War, ethnographic films such as we know today were

Objects by Luc De Heusch