Celluloid Colony: Locating History and Ethnography in Early Dutch Colonial Films of Indonesia by Sandeep Ray (review)

Q4 Computer Science
Josh Stenberg
{"title":"Celluloid Colony: Locating History and Ethnography in Early Dutch Colonial Films of Indonesia by Sandeep Ray (review)","authors":"Josh Stenberg","doi":"10.1353/ind.2023.a910159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reviewed by: Celluloid Colony: Locating History and Ethnography in Early Dutch Colonial Films of Indonesia by Sandeep Ray Josh Stenberg Sandeep Ray. Celluloid Colony: Locating History and Ethnography in Early Dutch Colonial Films of Indonesia. Singapore: NUS Press, 2021. Celluloid Colony is an important and salutary book, both for the way it uses film to analyze late colonial Indonesian society and for its intervention in the debates surrounding the role of film in historiography. Ray's object of study is the corpus of films made on location in the Dutch East Indies at the behest of institutes, agencies, and corporations intent on building support back home for the colonial enterprise. Viewed mostly in the Netherlands, they were preserved more or less fortuitously in the Colonial Institute archives and then long ignored before being brought to light from the late 1980s by a new generation of researchers and artists who discovered them in the Filmmuseum (now the EYE Filmmuseum), where they had been transferred in 1975. Slated for partial digitization as part of a larger initiative in 2006, this archive now makes for fascinating viewing, much of it accessible online. But, as Ray persuasively argues, it also represents a trove of important primary sources for ethnographic information and social history that allow us unique access to several areas of late colonial history. A historian at the Singapore University of Technology and Design, Ray worked in Dutch archives over many years (this monograph evolved from his 2015 National University of Singapore doctoral dissertation), viewing not only the finished films but also consulting surviving offcuts and production information. Ray has spent the interval well, for the monograph shows no tell-tale traces of the dissertation genre and is accessible, assured, and compact. The hard yards have paid off: his most fundamental contribution consists in providing an initial chronology and typology for the considerable corpus of Dutch East Indies cinema and laying out the commercial, administrative, political, and religious concerns that created them. His period ranges from the earliest films made in 1912 until 1930 and covers Colonial Institute, corporate, and religious films in the three substantive middle chapters. This is a signal achievement, for the gap it begins to fill is vast, there being no comparable work about Indonesia on film in this period. In the first two chapters, Ray situates his study as an answer to the question of how and why historians in general can and should make use of filmic sources and why historians of colonialism in particular should set about it. The framing and argumentation for doing history with documentary film is swift and jargon-free and the point made so persuasively that I found myself finding little but knee-jerk conservatism or text worship to oppose it (although diplomatic Ray's tone is never impatient). There is no reason to think that using documentary film to do history is a naive endeavor any more than the use of colonial documents is, and film's intended and incidental evidence can provide compelling information on the experience and mindset of those living in the colonial period. These literal glimpses can in turn corroborate, adjust, or challenge claims made based on textual materials alone. In some cases film also records practices that can be used to validate or even assist in reviving tradition, and moments of \"inadvertent ethnography\" (62) show us sides of Indonesian lives that would otherwise be permanently inaccessible to us. The colonial films served many masters—from movies intended to show scientific progress to those soliciting funds for [End Page 183] Catholic missions to Flores—and they can serve the historian now, too, hopefully for very different purposes. Documentary films seem especially useful and urgent in the case of Indonesia, due to the lacunae in early cinematic history produced by the survival of little or any colonialera fiction films and what Ray takes to be disinterest among the historians of modern Indonesian film in overtly colonial work. But acknowledging the salience of these materials by no means signifies that they represent comfortable viewing, and it is likely precisely the awkwardness of the films for us—from this historical vantage point, these films are not by the \"right\" people...","PeriodicalId":41794,"journal":{"name":"Internetworking Indonesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internetworking Indonesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ind.2023.a910159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Computer Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Reviewed by: Celluloid Colony: Locating History and Ethnography in Early Dutch Colonial Films of Indonesia by Sandeep Ray Josh Stenberg Sandeep Ray. Celluloid Colony: Locating History and Ethnography in Early Dutch Colonial Films of Indonesia. Singapore: NUS Press, 2021. Celluloid Colony is an important and salutary book, both for the way it uses film to analyze late colonial Indonesian society and for its intervention in the debates surrounding the role of film in historiography. Ray's object of study is the corpus of films made on location in the Dutch East Indies at the behest of institutes, agencies, and corporations intent on building support back home for the colonial enterprise. Viewed mostly in the Netherlands, they were preserved more or less fortuitously in the Colonial Institute archives and then long ignored before being brought to light from the late 1980s by a new generation of researchers and artists who discovered them in the Filmmuseum (now the EYE Filmmuseum), where they had been transferred in 1975. Slated for partial digitization as part of a larger initiative in 2006, this archive now makes for fascinating viewing, much of it accessible online. But, as Ray persuasively argues, it also represents a trove of important primary sources for ethnographic information and social history that allow us unique access to several areas of late colonial history. A historian at the Singapore University of Technology and Design, Ray worked in Dutch archives over many years (this monograph evolved from his 2015 National University of Singapore doctoral dissertation), viewing not only the finished films but also consulting surviving offcuts and production information. Ray has spent the interval well, for the monograph shows no tell-tale traces of the dissertation genre and is accessible, assured, and compact. The hard yards have paid off: his most fundamental contribution consists in providing an initial chronology and typology for the considerable corpus of Dutch East Indies cinema and laying out the commercial, administrative, political, and religious concerns that created them. His period ranges from the earliest films made in 1912 until 1930 and covers Colonial Institute, corporate, and religious films in the three substantive middle chapters. This is a signal achievement, for the gap it begins to fill is vast, there being no comparable work about Indonesia on film in this period. In the first two chapters, Ray situates his study as an answer to the question of how and why historians in general can and should make use of filmic sources and why historians of colonialism in particular should set about it. The framing and argumentation for doing history with documentary film is swift and jargon-free and the point made so persuasively that I found myself finding little but knee-jerk conservatism or text worship to oppose it (although diplomatic Ray's tone is never impatient). There is no reason to think that using documentary film to do history is a naive endeavor any more than the use of colonial documents is, and film's intended and incidental evidence can provide compelling information on the experience and mindset of those living in the colonial period. These literal glimpses can in turn corroborate, adjust, or challenge claims made based on textual materials alone. In some cases film also records practices that can be used to validate or even assist in reviving tradition, and moments of "inadvertent ethnography" (62) show us sides of Indonesian lives that would otherwise be permanently inaccessible to us. The colonial films served many masters—from movies intended to show scientific progress to those soliciting funds for [End Page 183] Catholic missions to Flores—and they can serve the historian now, too, hopefully for very different purposes. Documentary films seem especially useful and urgent in the case of Indonesia, due to the lacunae in early cinematic history produced by the survival of little or any colonialera fiction films and what Ray takes to be disinterest among the historians of modern Indonesian film in overtly colonial work. But acknowledging the salience of these materials by no means signifies that they represent comfortable viewing, and it is likely precisely the awkwardness of the films for us—from this historical vantage point, these films are not by the "right" people...
赛璐珞殖民地:印尼早期荷兰殖民电影的定位历史和民族志(桑迪普·雷著)
《赛璐珞殖民地:印度尼西亚早期荷兰殖民电影的定位历史和民族志》,作者:桑迪普·雷。赛璐珞殖民地:印度尼西亚早期荷兰殖民电影的定位历史和民族志。新加坡:新加坡国立大学出版社,2021。《赛璐珞殖民地》是一本重要而有益的书,既因为它用电影来分析印尼殖民后期社会的方式,也因为它介入了围绕电影在史学中的作用的辩论。雷的研究对象是在荷属东印度群岛拍摄的外景电影的语料库,这些电影是在机构、机构和公司的授意下拍摄的,目的是为殖民企业在国内建立支持。它们大多在荷兰被观看,或多或少是偶然地保存在殖民研究所的档案中,然后被长期忽视,直到20世纪80年代末,新一代的研究人员和艺术家在电影博物馆(现在的EYE电影博物馆)发现了它们,它们于1975年被转移到那里。作为2006年一项更大的计划的一部分,这些档案将被部分数字化,现在可以在网上观看,其中大部分都可以访问。但是,正如雷令人信服地指出的那样,它也代表了民族志信息和社会历史的重要原始来源,使我们能够独特地进入晚期殖民历史的几个领域。作为新加坡科技与设计大学的历史学家,雷在荷兰档案馆工作了多年(这本专著是他2015年在新加坡国立大学的博士论文的基础上写成的),他不仅观看了完成的电影,还查阅了幸存的剪辑和制作信息。雷很好地利用了这段时间,因为这部专著没有任何论文类型的痕迹,而且通俗易懂、有保证、紧凑。他的努力得到了回报:他最根本的贡献在于为荷属东印度群岛的大量电影提供了一个初步的年表和类型,并列出了创造它们的商业、行政、政治和宗教问题。他的时期从1912年最早的电影到1930年,在中间的三个实质性章节中涵盖了殖民学院,公司和宗教电影。这是一个标志性的成就,因为它开始填补巨大的空白,在这一时期没有关于印度尼西亚电影的可比作品。在前两章中,雷将他的研究定位为回答一般历史学家如何以及为什么能够和应该利用电影资源,以及为什么殖民主义历史学家特别应该着手研究这一问题。用纪录片来研究历史的框架和论证是迅捷的,没有行话,提出的观点是如此有说服力,以至于我发现自己除了下意识的保守主义或文本崇拜之外,几乎找不到什么反对它的理由(尽管雷的外交语气从来没有不耐烦过)。没有理由认为用纪录片来做历史是一种幼稚的尝试,就像使用殖民文献一样,电影有意和偶然的证据可以为生活在殖民时期的人们的经历和心态提供令人信服的信息。这些字面上的一瞥反过来又可以证实、调整或挑战仅基于文本材料的主张。在某些情况下,电影也记录了可以用来验证甚至帮助复兴传统的实践,以及“无意的民族志”(62)的时刻,向我们展示了印度尼西亚生活的各个方面,否则我们将永远无法接触到。殖民时期的电影为许多大师提供了服务——从展示科学进步的电影到为天主教派往弗洛雷斯的传教活动募集资金的电影——它们现在也可以为历史学家服务,希望有不同的目的。在印度尼西亚,纪录片似乎特别有用和紧迫,因为早期电影史上的空白是由很少或任何殖民时期的虚构电影的幸存造成的,而且雷认为现代印度尼西亚电影的历史学家对明显的殖民作品不感兴趣。但是,承认这些材料的突出绝不意味着它们代表着舒适的观看,这可能恰恰是这些电影对我们来说的尴尬——从历史的角度来看,这些电影不是由“正确的”人拍摄的……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Internetworking Indonesia
Internetworking Indonesia COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信