Since I have resigned from the most boring job on earth: cooking the same thing everyday, my desire to go home and pursue a PhD in economics/anthropology/sociology is now firm. I can save a lot if I follow that route. To prime or, actually, reorient myself with Philippine Anthropology, I have been checking how anthropology has been publicly practiced nowadays in my country.
Sadly, it is only in the media where anthropology seems relevant, and another sad thing is that it is the journalists, not anthropologists, who practice it. I find it actually interesting. The general and interdisciplinary education at my old university is, indeed, working. I remember how those journalism and broadcasting majors took anthropology courses as electives and mingled with us in classrooms and in the field as if they were one of us-- anthropology majors. They were interested in the holistic approach of the discipline and its adventurous and creative nature. With anthropology, they didn't aimlessly shoot. Their cameras spoke their minds.
I found this video, Hamog (Dew), on Youtube. It is ethnographic, visually creative, theoretically rich, and very anthropological. Socio-cultural theories come out from conversations and from the characters we call informants in anthropology. They don't sound forced and contrived. Stories are told not retold. There is no voyeurism. The characters in the documentary open up and share. There is first-hand authenticity. Their language sounds poetic and philosophical, but their thoughts are clear and to the point. I can sense multiple theories even though the journalist does not mention one. The documentary does not insult my intelligence, or ignorance.
I wonder if such visual documentation can be replicated in texts. I am sure its creative style--such as the webbing of multiple stories to come up with a cohesive whole--is replicable. I am a firm believer now that creative writing can do wonders to our boring anthropological texts like what a creative videography does to a convoluted social documentary.