Clark and Brittain have written a great compendium of the relation of media and Archaeology. Having worked in the film and television world for over twenty years, I am struck at how gentle they are in their commentary (perhaps this is a difference between manners in the UK and the USA). In addition, they seem to limit most of their criticism to the institutions, rather than the artists and craftspersons who work in film and television.
I would like to take this opportunity to expand on some of what Clark and Brittain have put forth.
On page 17, the authors cite Cleere, saying producers presented " a somewhat distorted and over simplified picture of what archaeology is all about." My immediate response was, "Take a number." This simplification is the stock and trade of film and television. I will grant that 30 to 90 minutes does not give one much time to develop depth. In fact, the depth we perceive is often what the viewer brings to the table. This is because the image/film is ambiguous. I am not saying documentaries are free of solid content. I am suggesting that what filmmakers know is that the audience completes meaning, and that gives greater depth to a film.
The authors quote Holtorf about the ambiguous nature of fashion styles, which make them "open to unintended interpretation." Here again, I say, that is the nature of how the medium is practiced.
Manichean simplifications abound because people are taught that "contrast equals interest" in film school. Students are taught formulas for storytelling, building character arcs, and engaging the viewer. They are easy to fall back on, especially when time is crunched, which is nearly all the time on production schedules.
As Stephanie Moser beautifully outlines in her essay, "The Visual Conventions for Constructing Knowledge about the Past", "conventions characterizing archaeological representation are iconography, autonomy, longevity, authenticity, signularity, dramatism, and persuasiveness." These conventions are the tool kit of the filmmaker.
Filmmakers are not experts at telling the truth. I have been on plenty of documentary productions in which rooms are re-dressed in order to get a better shot. Filmmakers want to get their point across, often at the expense of what the subject believes to be real or true.
There is a joke told in Hollywood: "How can you tell someone in Film is lying?" "Their lips are moving." Films, like relationships in Hollywood, are stepping stones to other, better, more lucrative options. Hollywood is peopled by the bright and clever, not the highly educated, as a rule. Film people have often been likened to "carnies with teeth." The Harvard comedy mafia is a noted exception to the rule.
Images have affordances for showing what looks good, what looks true, rather than what is good or true. Films do not ask that the mansion be really haunted. It asks that it looks haunted. When a choice has to be made between being and seeming, seeming will win.
Films have not been the best medium for transmitting textual thinking. We do, however, do lots of thinking about what we have seen and heard. Film does very well with watching people dig, or discover spectacles large and small. Film does less well talking about it. The caveat here is getting someone with a gorgeous voice (Patrick Stewart) or a strange voice (Stephen Hawkins) which adds character. These kinds of voices may tell the story more than the actual words do. The discourse of film is emotional first, cerebral a distant third at best.
Truly, PBS has fallen. Supposed scientific shows are in truth Big Foot in in lab coat drag.
The bottom line is one thing and one thing alone: MONEY. Viewer ratings mean sponsors are happy which means that they will pay to have shows broadcast. Anything that will get viewers to buy their products is the trump card. Shows are simply wrap-arounds for commercials. "Station breaks" are the sole purpose of most television. If you are neither adept at feeding this dragon, nor willing to feed it you are out of a job. Plenty more where you came from.
So, it is in part institutional, but the individual players all tow the line. They want what everyone else wants: better and more lucrative options.
Clark and Brittain are commendable in that they are upfront about the need for funding. That makes the research wheel go round. They wish to find a common ground where media and archaeology can be partners.
Alas, I think the lure of Hollywood is too great for all but the very faint of heart.
The good news is that digital cameras are cheap. A camera bought at Best Buy paired with a Mac can make films possible in a way that could not have happened 10 years ago. The Web has changed how films are seen. Youtube has Universal doing back flips.
Archaeologists of the world unite!
Take the means of film production into your hands and tell the stories you want.
But there is another thing. We must learn to use the tools. This takes time and practice. For example, knowing how light works, or how depth of field makes an impact on the image. Storytelling itself, not textual, but graphical storytelling must be broached. There are plenty of good texts:
Will Eisner's "Graphic Storytelling and Visual Narrative", and his "Comics and Sequential Art" are a great start.
Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" is another great book that reveals the inner workings of graphic storytelling.
Let us not forget about sound design and production design, two more powerful tools cinema uses in creating compelling experiences.
Add interactivity and we may have better options for disseminating and contributing to archaeological studies than ever before.
