The film Forest of Bliss to me looked very professional. I wonder how this effect is created. Is it just a result of a multiplicity of various perspectives, from which we see the scenes, as if there are many cameras working in the field? Or is it because there are no interactions between the cameraman and the subjects? Or is it because aesthetics seem to be more prominent than other topics, such as a narrative about particular event or a ritual?

Does this effect or image of visual professionalism changes in time? For example, various digital special effects are now almost inevitable part of professional films produced by the industry. Does it mean that in some time ethnographic films will need to use same effects or animation to look updated and professional themselves?

Even ethnographers are doing their film for the audience, and this means that if audience is changing, getting accustomed to particular visual standards, than ethnographic films have to absorb these standards. For example, many contemporary ethnographic films use short cuts, with fast changing images, so to look familiar to the audience trained to watch advertising clips and action films.

The debate around the Forest of Bliss seems to be preoccupied with the autonomy of anthropology from the surrounding environments, including film industry. Such autonomy seems to me impossible, and that is why I am not worried about the penetration of new visual technics.  I am worried about the demand for professionalization that such absence of autonomy creates. We cannot pretend that our amateurish film-making is enough for the purposes of the anthropological discipline. We have to develop professionally looking films, otherwise nobody will watch them. Does that mean that we have to work in collaboration with professional film makers? How can we integrate such collaborations with our fieldworks and difficult ethical problems connected with them?