General discussions

Hi folks,

I was just reviewing my notes thus far, and had some questions on the "Altar of Fire" video that we watched. 1). What is the significance of constructing the altar in the shape of a bird? Can it be any bird, or a specific type? 2). What are your thoughts on the "reality" of this event since it was staged? What about the authenticity of the ritual itself? This seemed like it was produced for academic use. Was it tailored to fit that purpose, or was the original ritual preserved in its exact form?

http://www.der.org/films/altar-of-fire.html (documentary page) and http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=217022 (N.Y. times review) Thoughts? Ideas? --Stella 21:06, 29 January 2006 (MST)

I have some ideas on why the altar was constructed in the shape of a bird. For most Hindus, worship and religious rituals are conducted at home. As a part of daily ritual, gifts of food (usually small amounts of grain) are given to needy persons and animals, particularly birds. The self-sacrifice involved to do this earns much merit, and many Hindus believe offerings to needy persons and birds are received by their ancestors. So, I think this bird symbolizes self-sacrifice (of the goods being places into the altar) to earn good merit, as well as a rememberance of ancestors.

Hinduism disclaimer: In Hinduism, as in other religions, there are always varying interpretations, ideas, and beliefs. Most of my understanding comes from the way Hinduism is practiced in Western India. --Niyati 21:20, 1 February 2006 (MST)

Just to add my thoughts to the second part of Stella's question, because these people were willing to perform this ceremony, and (as claimed by the videos' director) still believed in its practice, I believe there is still some validity to its religious claim. That being said, people will act differently when outsiders are present, and the outsiders may act in such a way to force a change. (Think of the ETIC theory in Etic vs. Emic) A good example of that was when some of the men kept looking into the camera. The ritual may not have been as strong as it once was, and (unconsciously I'm sure) the photographers may have influenced the ceremony, however I believe that having a record of an extint practice makes it worth while.

Anyone have different thoughts?

What about the other ceremonys and rituals we have watched in class? They may still be practiced, but do you think their validity should be questioned because they were videotaped? Do you think that they are different than they would usually be just because of a cameraman? I'm trying not to play devil's advocate here to much, feel free to submit your opinion!

--Khaver 23:02, 1 February 2006 (MST)

I think that the presence of a camera and a camera "man" would definatly have an effect on the superficial aspects of the performance and on the spiritual aspects as well. People who are invested in a belief and who have devoted time and effort to become practitioners and performers of the belief's rituals will, in my opinion, always want to make outsiders (ie: the camera man) see the value in their beliefs and rituals. Because of this inference, the performers in staged rituals will, be it consiously or unsconsiously, alter their performance on a superficial level which most likely would have an impact on the spiritual intensity of the experience because of the distraction and desire to make a good impression.--129.128.67.23 13:46, 2 February 2006 (MST) KellyM

I wonder if having the camera around might have motivated the participants, particularly in the Altar of Fire video, to preserve authenticity to the best of their ability. To know that something that you are doing is going to be preserved "indefinitely" is a powerful thing.

(And another thing, it's hard to not look at a camera when it's pointing in your general direction...professional actors have to given visual cues to make sure that they don't accidently do this. Who knows how many cameras there were? Maybe the people behind the cameras looked funny. Maybe there was something going on behind the camera. We will never know.) --Niyati 00:13, 2 February 2006 (MST)

I think Altar of Fire was at least a decent portrayal as far as authenticity goes. The participants didn't seem to 'play-it-up' at all for the cameras. Although they glanced at them, they didn't seem to alter their behaviour. Keep in mind the length of the ritual; I'm pretty sure the presence of the cameras wasn't felt significantly after the first several hours, as demonstrated by the scratching, yawning, and sleeping... It didn't seem like a particularly intimate, emotional practice either. I think if there was more vulnerability involved on the part of the participants, the cameras definately would've had a more drastic effect. Also, perhaps the participants didn't fully understand the significance of the videotaping anyway (if I am being Eurocentric or something please punch me in the face). --Gloria 16:59, 5 February 2006 (MST)

Yes, I've been wondering about this very thing as we've watched tapes of some of Michael's fieldwork. Michael, what was your experience of being both participant and observer in some of these rituals, especially with the camera? And how did you feel people reacted to its presence? I wondered that particularly in the one video where people are being quite ecstatic and not paying attention to the camera at all. I assume it was out in the open.--Jordanv 14:31, 8 February 2006 (MST)

• As a side note, I wonder if our opinions will change after our own field experience has finished? Going from an outside view to a more intimate knowledge position may change our views of how the people taped the ceremony in Altar of Fire and the other videos we've watched so far. --Kristen 16:01, 8 March 2006 (MST)