Them and Me, Stéphane Breton

    Blending reflexive, observational, and participatory styles of documentary, Stéphane Breton questions the role of the observer supplanting the audience for himself.   Although the main characters appear to be the visible subjects of the film, the true subject is never seen – except for a glimpse of his hand during a monetary exchange.  Always present, in documentary – and in fiction as well, either tacitly or implicitly – the filmmaker represents his/her self by the subject matter chosen, the direction of the narrative, the statement being made, as well as by creative choices such as the use of black & white, or color, or a host of other options.  Breton questions representation itself in this film. 
   
    Breton lived and worked as an anthropologist among the Wodoni of Papua New Guinea, for many years (undisclosed how many years in this film) learning their language, becoming friends and essentially being accepted as 'family' member.  Although, not all of his trials and exploits are on display here.  Here he seems to be questioning the true nature of his relationship within their society.  What am I to them?  Why have they let me follow them around? What does it mean to be here?  Breton is either ingeniously asking us to question the title, and therefore the notion of documentary as always being a misrepresentation, or he has set out to make a film about 'Them,' and instead, made a film about himself.  The title should be Me and Them.  Or, possibly even Me through Them.  It's unquestionably more about the filmmaker than them. 

    Always handheld, and always narrating – it's his voice we hear the most – the audience becomes him, as he engages in dialogue making such revelatory statements such as:
"This camera is my bow."  (The bow and arrow of the Wodoni is part and parcel to their culture and existence.)
"What I don't like, wheat shames me is what brings us together."  A prejudice remark found only through principle.
"I'll wear them down in the end."  A comment on his tiresome intrusion.
   
    'The Self is only possible through the recognition of The 'Other,''  paraphrased the late Ryszard Kapuscinski of the late Emmanual Lévinas (d. 1995).  This film is an attempt to recognize the filmmakers' self through his subjects.  He has for years invaded their privacy and commanded their attention (although presumably not wanting them to pay him any attention) in attempt to discover what is 'Other' in them – and presumably some other specific anthropological work.  I believe he is questioning an anthropologists' attempts at epistemology, particularly as is gained by his participant-observer status.  By trying to be like them – his camera is his bow, his shame is their shame, his intrusions a need for understanding (Understanding whom? we might ask) – he inadvertently doesn't allow them to be themselves.  How can they?  Who is he, and who are they?  In the end, we don't know who 'they' are, and we quesion who 'he' (read: we) is/are in relation to them.