See note 1 of the article: "This paper was written by four authors as a multi-vocal collaborative exercise that resulted from our experience as members of the jury of the ethnographic film screening that the Portuguese Anthropological Association (APA) organised in 2016. However, given the conference regulations, which establishes a maximum of three authors per paper, we have collectively decided to provide one name - that of the corresponding author. The de facto authors of this paper are: Humberto Martins ([email protected], UTAD/CETRAD), Ricardo Seiça Salgado ([email protected], CRIA-UMinho), Raquel Schefer ([email protected], Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3) and Sofia Sampaio. We hope that, in the near future, the conference organisation may find a way to fully acknowledge this kind of collaborative work."In this paper we describe, analyse and reflect on our first-hand experiences as members of the jury of the Ethnographic Film Screening of the 6th Meeting of the Portuguese Anthropological Association (APA), which took place in the University of Coimbra, in June 2016 (http://vicongresso.apantropologia.org/mostra-de-filme-etnografico/). To quote from our call for the ethnographic films, our “simple invitation” was to “show through images how ‘Disputed Futures’ [the topic of the general meeting] mean the diversity of presents and pasts; because the world is made on different rhythms, impulses, desires towards the uncertainty and incompleteness of history.” Our criteria for the film selection process was divided into (1) cinematic quality and originality (cinematography, sound, etc.) and (2) the anthropological character of the films. In the end, we selected 21 out of a total number of 101 films received, among short, medium and feature-length formats. The selection proved a difficult process, raising important issues, namely: was this ‘practical’ division between ‘cinematic quality’ and ‘anthropology’ theoretically (and even empirically) sound? Was it able to overcome the separation between content and form? To what extent were our preferences determined by our different professional backgrounds? Is it possible to assess fairly the ‘ethnographicity’ of such a large number of films, originating from a wide range of geographical and even academic contexts? How did the context of the event – a meeting of anthropologists – impact on our viewings and final choices? Lastly, how did the cinema-going conventions and expectations associated with this kind of film exhibition frame constrain the films’ ‘ethnographicity’? Are there any exhibition alternatives?SFRH/BPD/100647/2014.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio
