(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Ghostland is a German documentary based partly on the everyday life of a indigenous group in Namibia, more specifically the Ju / ›Hoansi tribe, who have been feeding and hunting in the Kalahari desert Namibia in 25 years. Partially describes the film a journey some representatives for come undertakes with Walter, who works for a voluntary organization and the film team.
Werner, a very sympathetic representative of an unnamed voluntary organization, reportedly makes a bus available to a group that has agreed to explore the nation they form a very insignificant part of: Namibia.
The journey is initiated by the voluntary organization. The idea for the film was developed by Simon Stadler and Sven Methling. Stadler is a trained "historical ethnologist" and Methling is a social geographer. Catenia Lermer, interior architect and singer, is credited as co-director. The result of the journey is an anthropological film that also has high artistic quality.
From the first seconds of the introduction, the filmmakers confront us with a cultural accident. We are presented to a group of adults and children wearing the "traditional" clothing of the bush people; more or less naked individuals only wearing loincloths covering the most private parts of the abdomen. This group in all its human nudity stands outside a high fence and obviously sees for the first time a large passenger plane landing at an airport. This cultural accident is communicated in the form of the Ju / ›Hoansi people's humble, humorous and deeply empathetic way of looking at the developments they involuntarily are part of, and the situations they encounter by participating in the journey initiated by the German voluntary organization.
No reward. The filmmakers offer the audience moving images and sound from a peripheral that is so peripheral that it is almost unimaginable. The trio maximizes the Brechtian alienation effect by having the replicas in the film more or less exclusively performed on Ju / ›Hoansienes language and conveyed with English subtitle. This alienation is doubled by the Ju / ›Hoansiene also made as strangers in their own lives.
Ghostland is a funny movie because the contrasts shown are absurd. as The Ju / ›Hoansi traveler arrives at a hotel built by a field of rock carvings carved in the mountains by Ju / Hoansien's ancestors – a rock carving field under the protection of UNESCO's World Heritage Program – clarifying surprising dividing lines. Not between Africans and Europeans, but between national and international organizations fetishizing traces of past indigenous people side by side with the total depreciation of contemporary people living a traditional indigenous lifestyle. The hotel caters to the luxury needs of high-powered visitors. The establishment's staff and guests pretend to regard the traveling companion from the Ju / ›Hoansi tribe with measured contempt.
The Cultural Accident is communicated in the form of the Ju / ›Hoansi people's humble, humorous and deeply empathetic way of viewing the development that they involuntarily are part of.
Ghostland is also a sad, sad, uncomfortable sad, because the film's implicit intention seems to be to document some sort of reward for the Ju / Hoansi tribe – parts of this group agree with anthropologists' notions that knowledge can improve the relationship or contract relationship between strong and weak parties. Throughout the film, it becomes clearer and clearer that the filmmakers, despite sticking to a pre-conceived script, also exhibit critical self-reflection on the impact of the journey and the filmization of the journey. The expectation of a reward is not met.
Confusing. In the first phase of the film we are thrown into a situation characterized by the fact that hunting has recently been banned, so Ju / ›Hoansienes opportunities to feed have become very limited. The filmmakers film a sinking situation, and show how the hunt has become a function of entertainment for foreign tourists. However, the main part of the film is about how a small group from this small tribe of bushmen has accepted an offer from a German NGO to take part in a trip around Namibia to expand their knowledge of the nearby geographical area. An even smaller group has agreed to visit Germany. We also get to follow this group to Frankfurt, a tour of the rest of Germany and a short visit to Denmark.
The filmmakers reveal an intention that cultural exchange, knowledge and "negotiations" about culture can be a solution for this Namibian tribe trying to feed on the outer limit. On the border of the great desert – and on the border to be eradicated by modern society.
Ghostland is apparently a documentary film, but the filmmakers present images of great artistic quality. The contrasts between the indigenous population and the larger community seem almost too incredible not to be arranged.
Ghostland, which can be translated into Norwegian as' in the back wall» – or to preserve the element of death, "in the kingdom of shadows," «in the stalemate, "or perhaps" the realm of the spirits "- is a somewhat confusing film, since it avoids the presentation of stereotypes in form and content.
Traces of past indigenous people are fetishized while contemporary people with the same lifestyle are downplayed.
The confusion arises because a very sad reality is told by people with a great deal of humor. But also because the story in the film is consciously or unconsciously built around a kind of failure drama. In the German film company's web presentation of the project, the format is defined as documentary / road movie. Some of the confusion that arises during the film can be traced to this genre mix.
Every documentary filmmaker, filmmaker, artist and researcher faces a continuing problem: To what extent should an exploration project be true to the synthetic and pre-conceived planned idea, and to what extent should the basic idea also be subject to reassessment during the process?
Confidence Questions. Although I would recommend anyone to watch this movie, I have trouble accepting the experience that the filmmakers withhold important information. If the reason for the Ju / ›Hoansiene have been refused to hunt in the area around their place of residence because of the fact that they live in a nature reserve, this is an essential information. If the filmmakers' portrayal of two separate journeys – one with a group of tribal members around Namibia, and another journey with a smaller group to Northern Europe – is in fact their dramaturgical appropriation of one actual trip to Windhoek Airport, as the introduction pictures suggest, diminishes this confidence in the documentary in the project. I also think that Walter's voluntary organization might have been identified in the film, as this would also be relevant information about the relationship between the filmmakers and the organization. In the film's starting point, it also seems that the Ju / ›Hoansi tribe's monetary economy is undercommunicated, so the film can add up to a dramaturgical progression. Last but not least: Is it the film company that initiated the journey?
The film will be shown at the European documentary film festival Eurodok at the Cinemateket in Oslo, which will be held in the period 29.3 to 2.4.
