Exchange of Emails between
David MacDougall and Anna Grimshaw
From, "anna grimshaw"<spinsteruk@hotmail.com>
To: David.MacDougall@anu.edu.au
Subject: greetings
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:17:55 +0000
Dear David,
I am very much enjoying the Doon School tapes. Lots to
think about in terms of where you are taking anthropo-
logical cinema. I have now finished my review of With
Morning Hearts for VAR and will happily send it to you if
you'd like to read it. Hopefully you will think it fair.
I hope yourtrip to India went well—and where have you
reached with the remaining Doon School films?
with every good wish for 2003.
Anna
94 Volume 18 Numbers 1-2 2002
To.'annagrimshaw' <spmsteruk@hotmail.com>
From: David MacDougall
<david .macdougall@anu .edu au>
Subject: Re: greetings
Date: 29 Jan 2003
Dear Anna,
Thanks very much for sending the review. It's pretty rare
(in my experience) fora reviewerto allow the authorto
see the draft of a review, so I m grateful to you for the
opportunity. It's a thoughtful and highly articulate review
with some real substance to it, but I ve come to expect
thatofallofyourwriting. One good thing about letting
me see it is that I can correct a few small errors of fact
(like the size of the camera), but more of that later. I do
have a few other responses that you might want to take
on board (although I really have no right to ask you to).
I have the impression that you sometimes pull your
punches. In otherwords, there are a number of places
where you suggest that there is something troubling,
problematic, uneasy, possibly regressive, possibly
Visual Anthropology Review
unethical, etc. about the Doon project, and although you
indicate the direction of your argument I'm not sure you
actually complete it. There seem to be some unques-
tioned assumptions about the virtues of past forms of
collaboration, reflexivity, etc. when in fact these are not
absolutes but evolve and mature overtime. I realize this
is perhaps part of your own ambivalence about observa-
tional cinema, and your desire not to throw out the good
with the bad, but it may leave the reader with a feeling
thatthere is only one right course of development.
My second impression is in a way related to this. It
has to do with the distinction drawn between observa-
tional and other kinds of cinema. You are careful to
point out that this is often oversimplified, and even that I
may have contributed to the confusion in that early essay
of mine. But I would add to the discussion now that the
distinction between observation and participation was
always too crude, and furthermore that it's important not
to distinguish between the two only in terms of obvious
collaboration and camera style. Participation has just as
much, perhaps more, to do with how the filmmaker
participates in the lives and physical space of the
subjects. By the same token, observation can be
deeply immersed rather than (as you rightly say)
objectifying. As well, it does not does not necessarily
mean long takes. My own observational style has
increasingly drawn on the small observations I make of
details whilst I am filming. So although it is edited, it is
no less observational than a scene like, say, Karam
making his bed, all in one take. I think the distinction
between observation and participation is, finally, based
on a false premise—that the terms are of the same
order and are mutually exclusive. Forme, the Doon
project is both the most observational and participatory
cinema I have been engaged in. Was it collaborative?
I would say yes. The participation of the boys, their
desire to have their experiences faithfully represented,
was fundamental to the project. I would have got
nowhere without it.
I was interested in your mention of Rossellini,
because when I was a very junior lecturer at the Rice
University Media Center, Roberto Rossellini and Colin
Young were the two senior figures who joined the
program periodicallyfortwo orthree-week stretches.
So I got to know Rossellini a little, who at that time was
trying to engage with the Rice scientists. Anyway, in
respect of Rossellini, I recognize the justice of Bazin's
idea of two kinds of cinema, but I'm not so sure the
cinema of "those who put their faith in the image" (rather
than "reality") should be contrasted with the neorealists
in quite the way you put it: "The former 'added' to reality,
VisualAnthropology Review Volume 18
imposing their own interpretation of the world by means
of fragmentation and rearrangement." For surely, this is
also what Rossellini and De Sica both did, and indeed
what all of us as filmmakers do, and I think intend to do,
in order to reveal something meaningful about the world.
Inevitably as a filmmaker, one interprets, one fragments,
one rearranges the world. Isn't that what distinguishes
cinema from the stupidity of the surveillance camera?
So perhaps Bazin's distinction should be interpreted
more as a matter of degree, or of sensibility. However I
believe I do agree with you that I am closer to Rossellini
than De Sica, although rememberthat Rossellini
delivered some pretty egregious melodrama in Rome,
Open City, and at his best, De Sica does not overstate
things—forexample, the wonderfully subtle domestic
scenes in Umberto D.
Lastly, I wou Id urge you to point out that WM H,
although it can (and should be able to) stand on its own
as a film, should be judged as research within the
context and aims of the project as a whole. It is only one
part of a more comprehensive study. One film cannot
cover everything. And it is one of the great things about
film that it can look at one corner of life rather than the
whole system. So I think it is perhaps a little unfair to
suggestthat it should try toencompass everything itself,
such as the school's colonial heritage, the social milieu
into which it fits in modern India, or the dark side of the
school's hierarchical system. All these things are in fact
addressed, but progressively through the five films, and
in a way that tries to direct the viewer toward certain
realizations aboutthe school without being heavy-
handed. The films by no means presentthe school as
benign, or an ideal place to grow up, although the
"holding houses" do provide some protection to the
incoming boys. (Also, that year's group in WMH was, I
felt, exceptionally kind and mutually supportive.) The
Doon project can in some respects be seen as comple-
mentary to Sanjay Srivastava's study of the school,
Constructing Post-Colonial India: National Character
and the Doon School, Routledge, 1998. It would be
good perhaps if this could be included in your refer-
ences.
I've said very little about what I admired about the
review, which is a pity, because there are a great
number of important points made that I would like to talk
to you about further. But I have gone on too long
already. I hope we can continue the discussion. Also, I
appreciateyoursensitivity toward whatthefilm does
manage to achieve. I too wish this film could contain the
innovations ofpastfilms plus the innovations I am
attempting in this new initiative, but perhaps it is simply
Numbers 1-2 2002 95
not possible to do both at once.
Sorry this has become so long — I just got going.
Warm regards,
David
From: "anna grimshaw" <spinsteruk@hotmail.com>
To:david.macdougall@anu.ed LJ.au
Subject: Re: greetings
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:10:13 +0000
Dear David,
Very many thanks foryour response to my review. I must
confess I was a little nervous that you might think it was
unfair, or just plainly wrong; but I am very pleased to
haveyourcommentsatlength.lamjustuptomyeyesin
marking; and cannotfocus on anything more substantial
until the weekend. I am very much looking forward to
considering them carefully and will respond.
with very best wishes
Anna
From: "anna grimshaw" <spinsteruk@hotmail.com>
To: david.macdougall@anu.edu.au
Subject: greetings from NY
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 200316:55:55 +0000
Dear David,
Thank you for responding so generously to my review of
With Morning Hearts. You are quite right to point out
that I do not follow through properly on what I find
troublingorproblematicaboutthefilm.lamstillnotsure
what it is that bothers me—it is something to do with the
danger of aestheticizing human subjects that I feel lurks
in the film. Certainly I admire the boldness with which
you have pursued different kinds of collaboration,
something most anthropologists only pay lip-service to;
but I suppose I am confused about the nature of collabo-
ration that you are experimenting with in the Doon
School series.f The basis for co-operation and trust
isn't clear within the films. And, for me, it sets up a kind
of lingering uncertainty that makes foratroubled
viewing.
I agree entirely thatthe distinction between observa-
tional and participatory forms is a false one. There is
always a dialectical movement going on between two
96 Volume 18 Numbers 1-2 2002
poles of reflection and immersion, representation and
experience. Nevertheless I do believe there is some-
thing distinctive called observational cinema; and In the
work I am doing at present I am trying to clarify what this
might mean. For me, it is a central issue for anthropo-
logical filmmakers and one that depends on getting
beyond some of the established preconceptions that
condemn observational approaches as archaic rather
than contemporary. Of course it isn't about anything
straightforwardly intervention/non-intervention, reflexive/
non-reflexive. It is about a particular way of seeing that is
based in practice and that takes experience and the
non-discursive seriously. I have found some of the new
work about mimesis and tactile epistemologies to be
very helpful in clarifying what, for me, has always been
an important part of an observational approach—the
feel of a film, the notion of contact or "skin" as Laura
Marks puts it.
I am also aware that it is probably a bad idea to carry on
holding to terms like observational and participatory,
since they are so weighed down by past use and
misuse. Probably what is needed is a new discourse
that better describes what it is we might want to do with
image-based anthropological enquiry.
Within the space of the review it certainly wasn't
possible to explore the Italian neorealistfoundationsof
anthropological cinema in a way that does justice to the
complexities of the situation. I feel thatthe connections
are more often assumed than properly explored; and in
particular I would like to explore more fully the role of the
filmmaker/director who seeks to work with "found"
materials. Yes, I agree that Bazin's distinction is more
one of degree and that, of course, both Rossellini and
De Sica shaped their materials to reveal something
interesting about the world (and though more often than
notthey fell back on the conventions of melodrama).
Nevertheless I think it is importantfor visual anthropol-
ogy to understand betterthe whole question of aesthet-
ics and authorship/auteurship, not least because I feel
that this is an interesting new direction that your Doon
School films open up.
t The Doon School Series consists of the following:
Doon School Chronicles
With Morning Hearts
Karam in Jaipur
The New Boys
The Age of Reason
Visual Anthropology Review
The last paragraph of your message about the series as
a whole is interesting. Now that I have seen four films, I
agree that some of the issues I felt were curiously
excluded from WMH are present in the other pieces.
Neverthless it is hard to imagine that audiences will see
the whole series and as a result might find individual
films a bit frustrating in terms of understanding the more
general context. Showing WMH to my own students was
interesting. They found it long and demanding and
weren't sure that they wanted to go on to see others in
the series.
For me I can now see that there are many overlapping
and interesting resonances between the differentfilms;
but I must confess I am a little puzzled about the direc-
tion in which the series as a whole is moving. I would be
very interested to know more about how you decided to
work with the footage to create different pieces and how
the notion of social aesthetics develops and changes
overthe course of the whole project. This seems rather
opaque to me.
I, too, would very much prefer to talk over some of these
issues with you in person. Your response to my review
has given me much to think about and I very much hope
we can continue to exchange ideas and thoughts about
these questions.
I trust that your editing is going well—and I am greatly
looking forward to seeing the final film in the series.
Then there will really be something to get my teeth into.
with very best wishes
Anna
To: "anna grimshaw" <spinsteruk@hotmail.com>
From: David MacDougall
<david.macdougall@anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: greetings from NY
Date: 3 March 2003
Dear Anna,
I was glad to hear what you had to say about my
responses to your WMH review. My main worry about it
was justthat I've always had a bit of an objection in
principle to reviews that imply some hidden fault that
discredits a film but that don't actually say what it is.
This is usually expressed as "reservations," and it's
quite common. The problem is that it tends to leave the
author defenseless and the readers with an uncertain,
slightly nasty feeling toward the film. I can remember
some published remarks once about Gary Kildea's
Celso and Cora that Gary took badly because the
Visual Anthropology Review Volume 18
reviewer rather smugly took the moral high ground in
suggesting his concern for his subjects was not all it
might be. This in spite of the fact that the reviewer
actually knew nothing about the situation or Gary's long-
term friendship and commitment and help to Celso and
Cora. There was an exchange about this in RAIN or
Anthropology Today, I can't remember which. [See
Kildea, Gary & Margaret Willson, Interpreting Ethno-
graphic Film: An Exchange about Celso and Cora.
Anthropology Today 4 (2) 1986:15-17.]
It looks as if we agree a lot about the fuzziness of the
observational-participatory divide. And I guess there
really is an "observational cinema" although I'd love to
see it better defined. In contrast to you, I neverthought
Colin Young's article actually did this. I shall look
forward to what you have to say about it. I think the idea
of how one works with "found" materials goes to the
heart of it—indeed, I think it's what is at the heart of
documentary.
Just a few other responses to your responses. I must
say that I'm not entirely sure myself in what direction the
Doon series as a whole is moving — despite your
always crediting me with rational thought. The outline of
the five films wasn't in existence before I started, but
rather emerged from film to film. So it is an experience
from which I am still learning, and perhaps I can apply
some of the discoveries to the next project. For ex-
ample, the idea of social aesthetics is there only in a
tentativeformandcan be pursued much further. One
pattern to the project, however, is that the films become
progressively more narrowly focused, with Doon 1 the
most abstract and Doon 5 (The Age of Reason)
narrowed down to a portrait of a single student. I
therefore don't think you should be overly worried about
individual films nottreating all of the issues, because
this isn't a film series in the conventional sense but a
study that produces different sorts of documents, some
of them perhaps ungainly. I should like it to be seen in
that light. I do hope, of course, that some people will
find parts of it interesting and affecting, and that others
with a deeper interest will explore it more carefully and
use it in conjunction with books like Srivastava's.
I wasn't quite sure what you meant by aestheticizing
human subjects. On the one hand, I wondered if it was a
misreading of my use of the term aesthetics, which I
don't believe should be limited exclusively to beauty but
should be seen as a much broader field of sensory
experience that runs through all our lives. On the other
hand, I think it would be mistaken to maintain that an
aesthetic sensibility toward the world (including its
Numbers 1-2 2002 97
human subjects) isn't an integral part of all cinema,
including documentary. I can't imagine Rouen's or
Melissa's [Llewelyn-Davies] films without it—or I can, but
they would be impoverished. However, there is an
aestheticization that means finding a false or cliche'd
beauty in others rather than something genuinely felt.
I'm thinking, for example, of Leni Riefenstahl's "fascist
aesthetics" (as Sontag puts it), which subordinates living
individualstothedreamofan idealized humanity. I
don't think I do that, either here or in the Jie and Turkana
films, despite my finding much of beauty in those
societies and the people I have known there. To come
back to Celso and Cora again, perhaps some people
found itdisturbing because it wasn't sufficiently emotion-
ally disengaged and objective in an academic sense.
They would have preferred a cooler, more distant
approach. But I think it would have been impossible for
Kildea to make it that way without betraying his instincts
as a filmmaker and fellow human being.
You did make a point that the kind of collaboration, or
the basis for cooperation and trust, is not clear within the
Doon films. I think, though, that it almost never can be
that precise in films, because so much of it (at least in
our kind of filmmaking) is intuitive and unstated, and
because it is continually evolving. In a sense, one is only
"ready" to make the film when it is completed, when the
personal relationships upon which the film has been built
have reached their final point. In my case, these
relationships vary with each person I am filming and
fluctuate over the course of the film, so that it would be
very hard to sum up what they had been. (It will perhaps
be clearer in Doon 5, where there is only one main
character.) This is a little like what I was arguing about
superficial and deep reflexivity. I believe this is some-
thing one must take from the film as a whole, from a
multitude of small clues, almost by instinct—about a
filmmaker whom one can trust and one whom one
cannot. There is nothing explicit about the relationships
to actors or subjects in the films of Olmi or Basil Wright
orPreloran, but I trustthesefilmmakers completely.
Responding to their films is a little like meeting another
person and forming an impression of their character,
often without much direct evidence.
Do let me know more of your thoughts on observational
cinema. 1 would like to see some advance in the wider
understanding of this.
All the best,
David
From: "anna grimshaw" <spinsteruk@hotmail.com>
98 Volume 18 Numbers 1-2 2002
To: david.macdougall@anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: greetings from NY
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:47:51 +0000
Dear David,
You are quite rightto point out that not specifying what is
troubling about a film makes it very difficult for its maker
to respond. It is unfair and I intend to bear this point in
mind in the future. I am still thinking over the question of
aesthetics and my sense in WMH that there was an
awkward aestheticization of subjects. I'll try and explain
it when I have a clearer idea of what is at issue. It is
something connected with your more selfconscious
assertion of authorship in this film. I think, too, that
observational film always treads a very fine line between
distance and intimacy and that one viewer can find
closeness where another often finds distance. The
feeling of a film, where it is located, is highly elusive.
The Doon School project very much reminds me of CLR
James's classic book about his Trinidad childhood,
Beyond A Boundary. Do you know it? You might find it
valuable in reflecting on some of the themes of your
series.
I don't think Colin Young provides any definition of what
the [observational] genre is; but his essay is a very
useful springboard for pursuing ideas and connections
— and for discovering false trails.
I very much appreciate these exchanges and look
forward, I hope, to further communications on topics of
mutual interest!
with very best wishes
Anna.
To: "anna grimshaw" <spinsteruk@hotmail.com>
From: David MacDougall
<david.macdougall@anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: greetings from NY
Date: 14 March 2003
Dear Anna,
One thing no one seems to have commented on about
the Doon films yet is the humour in them, although when
they are shown to audiences it's clear that there are
many humourous moments. This puzzles me. Perhaps
Visual Anthropology Review
it's because documentary films are not supposed to
have humour—something I ve always refused toaccept.
Indian audiences, of course, find even more to be
amused by than non-Indian audiences, and in general
they seem to enjoy the films, and be more comfortable
with them, than non-Indians. The intimacy is also what
they find refreshing, because most Indian documentary
is so stodgy. We shall have to discuss this question of
intimacy more. For me, films are hardly worth making if
they do not try to bring us closer to some aspect of
human experience neglected by otherfilms.

Best regards,
David

Visual Anthropology Review Volume 18 Numbers 1-2 2002 99

 COMMENTS ON THE EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN DAVID MACDOUGALL
AND ANNA GRIMSHAW REGARDING THE REVIEW OF
DAVID MACDOUGALL
I suppose what puzzled me in our exchange was an
ambivalence I felt in how Anna regarded observational
cinema. On the one hand, she seemed to view it as
closely allied to the intersubjective and phenomenologi-
cal approaches of anthropology today; on the other, as
an obsolete approach that predated the progress we had
all made in learning how to pursue visual anthropology
properly. It may be that where we were at cross-
purposes was that I failed to make clear, and she per-
haps did not fully accept, that in the Doon School project
I was not trying to make ethnographic films within this
approved framework, but rather to look beyond or
beside it. Thus in With Morning Hearts I was not trying
to make evident the principles of collaboration and
reflexivity, although they are implicit in the film, nor
was I trying to circle back to an earlier mode of
observational cinema. I was not trying to comment on
the school as a hierarchical or postcolonial institution,
since the colonial heritage of the school is made very
evident in Doon School Chronicles. My aim was to
explore another possibility that I saw in film—to respond
to, and record, the sensory and emotional environment
in which the students found themselves. In With
Morning Hearts this involved not only the dormitory
setting and the patterns of the boys' daily routine but
also their consciousness of one another as physical and
social beings, at a time when they were trying to form
themselves into some sort of community.
It seems to me that the way we relate to our
surroundings plays an important but often underesti-
mated part in how we function in society, and it is an
aspect of life that film is particularly well suited to
examine. For me, filming this at Doon School required
an intensity of attention to the sensory world that I think
Anna found off-putting. One of her concerns is about
the potential for aestheticizing the human subject. I
believe how one sees others is a very personal thing, but
100 Volume 18 Numbers 1-2 2002
WITH MORNING HEARTS
it only amounts to aestheticizing if one regards others as
ideal types and disregards them as individuals. Perhaps
there is a confusion here between aestheticizing and
aesthetics in documentary. If we believe that the
filmmaker's presence should be evident in a film, it is
important not to be too prescriptive about the film-
maker's vision. I filmed the students as I saw them, and
as I think they were in the details of their daily life. As
a filmmaker I cannot separate my aesthetic sensibilities
from how I see people, and indeed I think it is our duty
as filmmakers to be as honest as possible in how we see.
This is very difficult—to put aside all the ways that other
people, and documentary conventions, and the estab-
lished academic disciplines would like us to see. To look,
and to look carefully, is a way ofknowing that is different
from thinking. No one can teach us this, we must each
discover it ourselves.
In our exchange, Anna and I agreed that observa-
tional cinema has long been misconstrued by critics as
a cinema of detachment. It is in fact the most personal
cinema of all, and the most engaged. Where the critics
have gone wrong is in assuming that filmmakers will
always wear their engagement on their sleeves. Obser-
vation and participation are not opposites, for in our
daily lives, whatever our relations with others, we are
always also observers. As I wrote to Anna, the Doon
School project has been both the most observational and
participatory cinema I have been involved in. The
problem is not that observational cinema is regressive
but that it remains relatively undeveloped. We filmmak-
ers are still very timid and convention-bound in how we
observe. We need to make a much more careful
exploration of how to be more attentive and responsive
with the camera.
Despite Anna's acceptance of a more nuanced,
interactive concept of observational cinema, her argu-
ment still seems to me to cling to a notion of it as
detachment. Colin Young, in his important article on
the subject, said about observational cinema that "in
order to work, it must be based on an intimate, sympa-
VisualAnthropology Review
thetic relationship between the filmmaker and the sub- facing those committed to investigating areas of ethno-
ject—not the eye of the aloof, detached observer." I graphic experience that lie at the edge of the discursive.
couldn't agree more. This is the task of a genuinely visual anthropology. David
Despite our differences on some of these questions, MacDougall is clearly at the heart of any such project;
I could not have had a more thoughtful, observant, or but the full significance of his contribution is yet to be
caring reviewer than Anna Grimshaw. realized. I believe that his films and writing demand
more serious and consistent engagement— indeed inter-
ANNA GRIMSHAW rogation—than they have so far received. In my own
attempt to articulate a critical perspective toward this
From the outset, I decided to make the question of work, I have discovered David to be a most thoughtful
observational cinema central to my review of David and generous respondent. I look forward to continuing
MacDougalFs With Morning Hearts. This film (and the dialogue.
Doon School Project more generally) offers a valuable
starting point in any attempt to reassess the genre. For
my experiences as a teacher and filmmaker over the last
ten years have led me to feel increasingly dissatisfied
with the existing critical discourse about observational
cinema. In particular, I have become impatient with the
easy reductionism of much commentary that dismisses
the form in narrowly scientistic terms. It is clear that a
good deal of writing about observational cinema is done
by people who are not themselves filmmakers, since
reflecting from the point of practice yields a more
complex and interesting series of questions. David
MacDougall is an unusual figure in this regard. His
commentary is securely anchored in his own filmmaking
activities. He writes from a place inside practice; and, as
a consequence, his insights are always subtle and
compelling.
Exchanging ideas with David MacDougall through
my review of his film and in the subsequent e-mail
correspondence has served to both extend and challenge
my thinking about observational cinema. Our dialogue
has reinforced my belief in the importance of observa-
tional cinema as a distinctive and contemporary mode of
inquiry. But, equally, it has served to remind me of the
urgent necessity for a new intellectual engagement with
the genre. Not least, there is the problem of what to do
with the term "observational cinema" itself. Is it too
compromised by the existing critical commentary to be
of any use, or can it be reclaimed as a particular (visual)
way of knowing? Certainly it is no longer enough to go
on judging it according to the old paradigms of either
scientific ethnography or semiotically-inflected film
theory.
Observational cinema is a way of knowing, one
located in the body and in the senses. How to approach
and render such knowledge is the central challenge

Visual Anthropology Review Volume 18 Numbers 1-2 2002 101