Our initial conversations on the relationship between landscape and theater supposed a relationship where film makers relied on landscape being a tool by which to tell their own story. In hindsight, how we discussed this approach supposed a connection where landscape is inferior to the story. Examples that came to mind where landscape could be seen as a background, a scenography, infront of which the activity unfolds. We also considered Nanook of the North, by which in fact the Canadian tundra is seen as a metaphoric personality, probably the antagonist, of the picture’s story. An ancient scene of To Live with Herds includes an extended uninterrupted shot of Logoth, the major character, pointing outside the fanciful geographical capabilities of this land his community resides in — offering that the spectator a map where the picture will occur. This picture viewing approach sees landscapes because a’space’, an all natural given, on which human agency is plotted on. The film maker would’utilize’ the landscape as a means of emplacement for the viewers to understand the provisions of their relationship to those characters. Another modality of this approach views an anxiety between closeness and space, sensual immersion, and detached monitoring.
Are cinematic arenas the world where the characters live in? Are arenas autonomous entities that arrangement the scenes? Do anthropologists really have a function in constructing those things? Or will be the cinematic arenas things to be gazed at from a distance?