The Soviet school of Visual Anthropology in Vietnam¹

Full Text

Introduction

The influence of the Soviet school on visual anthropology in Vietnam is a topic of considerable interest, particularly in comparison with the influence of other countries’ schools on Vietnamese visual anthropology. When situated within the Vietnamese context over the past three decades, there has been a transition from ethnology to anthropology under the influence of the international context. This topic is urgent because it clarifies the theoretical foundations, methodological frameworks, and historical legacy of visual anthropology in Vietnam after 1975, at a time when ethnology underwent a profound transformation into anthropology, and because recognizing the influence of the Soviet school provides a clearer understanding of its intellectual heritage and developmental orientations in the current context of globalization and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. To undertake this research, we employed a historical-sociological approach to analyze the context and development of the field, and complemented it with a cultural research methodology to analyze visual materials and related studies. The sources used in this article also include data drawn from academic seminars; selected reports that were edited and supplemented into systematic works; interviews with researchers; and in-depth analyses of academic heritage and innovations. These materials are currently archived at the Centre for the Heritage of Vietnamese Scientists, which we accessed directly. The study focuses on scholars trained in the former Soviet Union, Vietnamese anthropologists, and documentary resources - including books, articles, and images - related to Soviet ethnology and anthropology, as well as Vietnamese anthropological works produced in subsequent periods. One further methodological approach used in this research is the insider perspective, as the lead author of this article has participated in research, training, and teaching in visual anthropology, and has produced a number of anthropological films influenced by the Soviet school and several other foreign schools in Vietnam for nearly three decades.

There have been a number of in‑depth studies on the influence of the Soviet school on anthropology in Vietnam, aimed at clarifying the formation, dissemination, and impact of Soviet ethnology on Vietnamese anthropology - particularly in the specialized field of visual anthropology. Although Alexandrov’s article, “Introducing Visual Anthropology to the Russian Education System” [2014], does not directly address the influence of Soviet visual anthropology on visual anthropology in Vietnam, this study reconstructs a comprehensive picture of Russian visual anthropology in the past and its influence on contemporary schools. Likewise, the research conducted by Trần Thanh Hiệp [2024] on the reception of Soviet film theory in the early period of revolutionary cinema in Vietnam has demonstrated that, given the distinctive qualities of Soviet cinema, the reception of experience and theoretical influence by Vietnamese filmmakers was a natural development. According to his work, this reception took place through three channels: first, the most direct and influential medium was Soviet films themselves; second, the availability of books and materials in Russian translated into French or Vietnamese; and finally, direct learning and theoretical transmission from Soviet film masters who taught in Vietnam. Notably, the monograph edited by Nguyễn Văn Sửu [2019], titled “Ảnh hưởng của trường phái Xô-viết trong Nhân học ở Việt Nam” (The Influence of the Soviet School on Anthropology in Vietnam), presents the formation of the Soviet school in ethnology and archaeology in the Soviet Union, the dissemination of this school in Vietnam, and the influence and legacy of the Soviet school on anthropology in Vietnam across key dimensions such as research, teaching, and organizational structures - at the macro level of the discipline, institutional level, and individual level. These influences are reflected through the perspectives of those who were trained within the Soviet school, as well as researchers concerned with this issue. Importantly, within this monograph, Nguyen Truong Giang also addresses the influence of the Soviet school on Vietnamese visual anthropology.

It is evident that the influence of the Soviet school has served not only as a foundational pillar but also as an intellectual legacy that warrants objective evaluation within its historical context. At present, Vietnamese anthropology in general - and visual anthropology in particular - is undergoing a process of creative adaptation, seeking to overcome its limitations in order to develop into a dynamic academic discipline that meets the demands of an integrated and democratic society. Accordingly, a critical reassessment of the Soviet school’s influence is of great significance.

Soviet visual anthropology

In Russia Empire, the first instance of documentary filmmaking occurred merely five months after the debut of cinema at the Boulevard des Capucines in Paris. This took place in late May 1896, when the Lumière brothers filmed the Coro people. In the early twentieth century, the everyday life of the royal family became the principal subject of filmmaking in Russia. The Tsar took a personal interest in cinema and photography. Following a brief period of dominance by the French Lumière company, Russian film enterprises began, by 1907, to compete with French film companies through the establishment of domestic studios such as Drankov and Khanzhonkov. Between 1913 and 1914, Fyodor Bremer, an employee of the Khanzhonkov studio, produced the earliest ethnographic film footage in Russia. These pioneering works marked the inception of the ethnographic film genre in the Russian Empire, primarily documenting expeditions to Siberia, the Far East, and the remote northern territories. Subsequently, in 1927 - following the First World War and the Russian Civil War - Bremer’s films served as the foundation for the production of Arctic Circle, a film directed by Vladimir Yerofeyev.

During the Soviet period, one of the earliest and most renowned filmmakers was Dziga Vertov. A highly acclaimed master and a passionate proponent of documentary cinema, he made significant contributions to the development of ethnographic film. Two of his notable works, produced in 1926 – “A Sixth Part of the World and Lullaby” (a film portraying the nation’s ethnic groups through lullabies)—laid the foundational stones for ethnographic cinema in the Soviet Union.

The cameramen, working with materials collected by Vertov during expeditions to the most remote regions of the Russian Empire and the then-Soviet Union, laid the groundwork and provided the impetus for a subsequent wave of ethnographic filmmaking activities.

In the book of “Principles of Visual Anthropology”, edited by Paul Hockings, the section titled “The History of Ethnographic Film” by Emilie de Brigard provides an assessment of the significant position of the Soviet filmmaker Dziga Vertov, as well as the influence of Marxism in the global history of ethnographic film.

“The defining feature of the first generation of Soviet filmmakers lies in their close association with both science and art. The clarity and coherence of their films constitute a fundamental distinction between Eisenstein, Pudovkin, and other Soviet directors and their Western counterparts—those from whom they initially inherited ethnographic filmmaking practices. Dziga Vertov, a pioneering Soviet documentary filmmaker, directed Kino-Pravda in 1922 and articulated foundational theories of montage” [Brigard 1995].

Dziga Vertov’s filmmaking theory centred on the verification of reality and a commitment to objective truth. This theoretical framework would later exert considerable influence on ethnographic and anthropological filmmakers around the world. According to Brigard [1995: 29], Vertov’s filmmaking process consisted of six stages:

(i) The observation stage (In this phase, one must observe phenomena in all places and at all times with an immediate sense of perception and orientation toward forming an idea).

(ii) The post-observation stage (This involves logically organising observed images in a coherent and purposeful direction).

(iii) The filming stage (This entails directing the camera - researching to find suitable camera placements and adjusting scenes dynamically throughout the filming process).

(iv) The post-filming stage (This includes arranging filmed sequences according to thematic content and identifying any important missing shots).

(v) The evaluation stage (At this point, fragmented footage is immediately assessed with a view to being assembled into a coherent narrative, guided by principles such as evaluation, pacing, and the principle of superiority).

(vi) The final stage – This consists of constructing a broader thematic structure through smaller, more subtle details: reorganising all filmed sequences in a logical order and emphasising the central issues of the film.

Brigard [1995] regarded “Three Songs of Lenin” (1934) as Dziga Vertov’s most accomplished film. However, it is undeniable that Vertov’s filmmaking philosophy was strongly influenced by unilinear cultural evolutionism, and thus lacked a culturally diverse perspective on ethnic minorities. The final section of the film depicts a developmental narrative of “progress from past to future, from the era of slavery to the era of freedom” for the ethnic minority groups in Soviet Central Asia.

In addition, the Soviets actively encouraged the development of cinema in the constituent republics of the Soviet Union, such as Uzbekistan, Armenia, and Georgia. “Salt for Svanetia”, directed by Mikhail Kalatozov, vividly portrayed the harsh living conditions of the people in the Caucasus Mountains and the Soviet provision of technical assistance, which brought machinery to construct roads in response to the mobility needs of the local population. Another film addressing the contrast between the “pre-Soviet” and “Soviet” eras, “Turksib” (1928) by Viktor Turin, depicted the construction of the railway from Turkestan to Siberia and the responses of communities along the route [Brigard 1995].

These films, along with the ethnographic works of Aleksandr Litvinov, Vladimir Shneiderov, and others, provided valuable visual documentation of the cultural diversity among ethnic communities within the Soviet Union in the aftermath of the October Revolution.

In the latter decades of the twentieth century, cinemas and regional television stations began to emerge across most of the fifteen republics of the Soviet Union. Their mandate was to demonstrate the cultural development of the ethnic communities within the Soviet Union. As a result, a distinctive genre of visual documentation took shape. These films conveyed compelling impressions of the diverse ethnic identities across the Soviet republics. In the Baltic republics - such as Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania - numerous ethnographic films achieved notable success. Meanwhile, documentary and popular science film studios were established in major cities including Moscow, Leningrad, Sverdlovsk, and Kiev [Alexandrov 2014].

In the Soviet Union during the 1960s, efforts were initiated to construct a historical map of the Union’s ethnic groups. Filmmaking for scientific research purposes first emerged in 1961 at the National Museum of Ethnography of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. By the mid-1970s, ethnographic filmmaking had become an established practice of data collection and was widely employed by research institutions across the Soviet Union [Peterson 1975: 185].

However, the term “Visual Anthropology” was scarcely known in the Soviet Union prior to 1987, when the Republic of Estonia and European partners organised a documentary film festival in Pärnu focusing on themes related to visual anthropology. This event - the Pärnu Visual Anthropology Film Festival—featured the participation of several internationally renowned visual anthropologists from Europe and North America, including Heimo Lappalainen (Finland), Jay Ruby (United States), Jon Jerstad (Norway), and Asen Balikci (who served as Chair of the Commission on Visual Anthropology of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences from 1983 to 1993)¹. Notably, many Soviet ethnographers who attended the event experienced a form of cultural shock upon viewing the documentary films and engaging in cross-cultural dialogue—modes which they had previously been unfamiliar. Following the 1987 film festival, a number of Soviet ethnographers began to shift their perspectives and align themselves with the emerging practices of visual anthropological filmmaking.

Among those significantly influenced by the festival were Evgeny Alexandrov and Leonid Filimonov, two visual anthropologists teaching at Lomonosov Moscow State University. Since 1989, the two scholars have taught a specialized course on visual anthropology in the Soviet Union, drawing upon established theoretical frameworks and practical methodologies in the field, and incorporating numerous Western ethnographic films as core teaching materials. Their visual anthropology curriculum, designed for ethnography students in the Faculty of History, was sustained over a ten-year period. Beyond viewing films and engaging with the historical and theoretical foundations of visual anthropology, the course equipped students with essential skills and knowledge in basic photography, video production, and filmmaking. Given that the students had already acquired a certain level of ethnographic training, the course content placed particular emphasis on film analysis, practical photography, and technical filmmaking competencies. Key outcomes of this visual anthropology training included students’ dissertations and theses in the field, the translation of Karl Heider’s [1994] seminal textbook on visual anthropology into Russian, and the production of several ethnographic films on education [Ilbeykina 2014].

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked a period of considerable difficulty in acquiring filmmaking and editing equipment in the Russian Federation. It could be said that, during the 1990s, the Russian Federation’s education system experienced significant constraints, resulting in the inadequate provision of infrastructure and conditions necessary for the practice of visual anthropology. In this context, visual anthropologists in Russia continued to engage in filmmaking; however, their output was largely confined to recorded materials intended for research and pedagogical purposes, rather than fully produced films suitable for public screening.

Since 2000, under the presidency of Vladimir Putin, the Russian Federation has witnessed a consolidation of its national position, accompanied by significant developments in economic, social, cultural, and educational domains. It was during this period that institutions of higher education in the social sciences and humanities, along with historical and ethnographic museums across Russia, began to devote greater attention and resources to visual anthropology. In this new phase of development, drawing on Euro-American theoretical frameworks and the pedagogical experience of Russian visual anthropologists - many of whom placed strong emphasis on filmmaking as a means of representing traditional Russian culture - numerous researchers and filmmakers contributed to advancing and affirming the disciplinary status of visual anthropology in the Russian Federation.

Following the experiences in Krasnoyarsk in 2000, several universities across the Russian Federation initiated visual anthropology training programs in various cities, including Tomsk, Novosibirsk, Perm, Tolyatti, Ufa, and Khanty-Mansiysk, with varying degrees of success. The most successful of these was the course held in 2003 in Venetsiya, Bashkortostan. The participants selected for this program were individuals who demonstrated a willingness to actively engage in visual anthropological activities - ranging from those with prior experience in filmmaking to those who had never operated a camera. All, however, shared a certain degree of interest in ethnography or anthropology, or were employed in museums and sought to integrate visual anthropological methods into their work. Each participant was given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with film equipment, engage in filming, and acquire editing skills for application in their respective professional context. Another important aspect of the program consisted of training in the archiving of video materials and the development of strategies for audience engagement and dissemination [Alexandrov 2014]. The outcome of this training was the production of numerous films, including works created by first-time filmmakers. Although these productions may not have met professional technical standards, they succeeded in meaningfully capturing subjects within their lived environments. One such film was featured at the 2004 Visual Anthropology Film Festival in Mexico and again in 2005 at the festival hosted by the University of Warsaw in Poland.

In addition, visual anthropology in the Russian Federation held its first film festival in Moscow in 2002, organized in accordance with the foundational principles of visual anthropology.

The Soviet School’s influences on visual anthropology in Vietnam

Before examining the influence of the Soviet school on visual anthropology in Vietnam, it is necessary to consider how Soviet cinematic theory was first received during the early period of revolutionary cinema in the country. It was from this broader foundation of revolutionary cinema that subsequent influences developed in the more specialised field of visual anthropology.

There were three main pathways through which Vietnamese filmmakers absorbed Soviet cinematic theory. The first and most influential was exposure to Soviet films themselves. After the August Revolution and the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the Indochina Film and Cinema Company imported and screened several films in Hanoi, including “We Defend the Motherland». “The film made a strong impression on the intellectual youth of Vietnam, marking the first time they were exposed to such a cinematic work” [Phạm Ngọc Trường, et. al 2003]. Following the Border Campaign in 1950, Vietnamese access to Soviet cinema increased substantially. In addition to films from China and other socialist countries, Soviet productions such as “On Malakhov Hill”, “Hero Matrosov”,”Pilot Hero Maresyev”,”The Ukrainian Republic”, and “The Armenian Republic” were widely shown [Lê Thanh Dũng, Trần Văn Thủy 2013]. Later, Soviet films accounted for a considerable share of the national film distribution network. This created favourable conditions for Vietnamese audiences and filmmakers to gain sustained exposure to one of the world’s most influential cinematic traditions.

The second pathway through which Soviet film theory was introduced to Vietnam was via books and translated materials from Russian into French and Vietnamese for educational purposes. During the late years of the resistance against the French, most Vietnamese filmmakers with foreign language proficiency were fluent in French. Understandably, reading theoretical texts on cinema - with their specialised terminology and complex concepts, often challenging even for native French speakers - was not an easy undertaking. Later, after the liberation of the North, publications such as “Film Bulletins”, “Internal Reports”, and “Cinema Journals” paid considerable attention to the experience of Soviet cinema. Articles on the artistic philosophy of Yutkevich; the art of screenwriting by Vaisfel’d and Gabrilovich; feature-film directing methods by Mikhail Romm; documentary filmmaking by Roman Karmen; character construction and composition by Fomin; the melodrama genre; and the role of actors, among other topics, were widely introduced. It should be emphasised, of course, that these selected articles were not organised systematically and therefore could not provide readers with a thorough or comprehensive understanding of Soviet cinema. Nevertheless, the knowledge conveyed through these translated works was extremely valuable for Vietnamese scholars and practitioners engaged in both the research and creative production of cinema [Trần Thanh Hiệp 2024].

The third pathway through which Vietnamese filmmakers engaged with Soviet film theory was direct and formal study under the instruction of Soviet cinema teachers. In Vietnam, this was exemplified by the first training course in narrative filmmaking at the Vietnam Film School, in which the Soviet specialist Ajdai Ibraghimov served as the principal instructor. Notable graduates of this programme include prominent directors such as Nguyen Van Thong, Tran Vu, Hai Ninh, Hong Sen, and Bach Diep. In addition, numerous outstanding young cadres were sent to study at the Moscow Film School - VGIK. Among these were Le Dang Thuc, Nguyen Thu, and Bui Dinh Hac, as well as a cohort of directors who would later play significant roles in the development of Vietnamese cinema, such as Tran Đac, Khac Loi, Tran Van Thuy, Xuan Son, and Tran Trung Nhan.

A crucial aspect of the third pathway was the reception of Soviet film theory through direct collaborative filmmaking between the Soviet Union and Vietnam. The first Soviet film crew to work in Vietnam included three members, led by director Roman Karmen and accompanied by cinematographers Evgenhi Mukhin and Vladimir Eshurin. A number of young Vietnamese filmmakers were assigned to support and assist the production. Among them was People’s Artist Khac Lợi, who later shared: “I studied and worked in feature filmmaking, but I was deeply impressed by Roman Karmen’s way of making films. As a result, my works often do not follow conventional composition, moving from one thing to another, just like in real life - so the audience sees life as it truly is, not something composed” [Trần Thanh Hiệp 2024].

Director Trần Văn Thủy, the author of the documentary “Hà Nội trong mắt ai” (Hanoi in Whose Eyes), expressed with pride his admiration for his teacher, director Roman Karmen, in the book “Chuyện nghề của Thủy” (Thủy’s Professional Stories): “I received proper training, was tested, filmed and survived in the fiercely brutal battlefields of Southern Vietnam. I take great pride in being a student of Roman Karmen - a towering figure in Soviet documentary cinema, a man who made great contributions to humanity during the anti-fascist struggle and the national liberation movements” [Lê Thanh Dũng, Trần Văn Thủy 2013].

In later periods, Vietnamese cinema engaged in numerous exchanges and interactions with many renowned cinematic traditions worldwide. However, the early exposure to and reception of Soviet film theory played a profoundly significant role in shaping a revolutionary cinema in Vietnam - particularly in its artistic orientation and realist creative methodology.

Vietnamese cinema has made significant contributions to the national struggle for liberation and the building of a just, democratic, and civilised society. Many early cinematic works have become part of the spiritual legacy of generations of Vietnamese people. Within the context of exposure to socialist art, these achievements are invariably accompanied by fond memories of Soviet filmmakers.

From the foundations of early revolutionary Vietnamese cinema - shaped by the theories, perspectives, and aesthetics of Soviet cinema - we now turn to the narrower field of visual anthropology to examine how this sub-discipline has absorbed the influence of the Soviet school. Visual anthropology, as a specialized branch of anthropology, has developed significantly since the end of the Second World War. In Vietnam, over the past decade, ethnographic filmmaking has gradually aligned itself with global visual anthropology and has begun to achieve notable results, affirming its position as a key subfield within the broader discipline of anthropology. The formation and development of this subfield have unfolded against a backdrop of changing perspectives and growing awareness of anthropology among Vietnamese scholars, as well as under the influence of the digital technology revolution and increased financial investment by organizations in activities related to ethnographic filmmaking.

In the “Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology” [Bernard 1998], edited by H. Russell Bernard, Chapter 13 entitled “The Development of Visual Ethnography as Method and Theory” traces the origins of visual anthropology to the advent of modern image (and sound) technologies in Europe and the United States. The pioneers of the discipline included Alfred Cort Haddon, Baldwin Spencer, Franz Boas, Marcel Griaule, Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead, among others [ibid]. However, the term “visual anthropology” only came into common usage after the Second World War, when it became associated with the use of cameras in cultural documentation. In Europe, visual anthropologists have tended to focus primarily on ethnographic film. In the United States, all forms of visual media and communication carried out for the purposes of teaching, documentation, research, and analysis have been classified under the rubric of visual anthropology. Thus, it could be said that global visual anthropology emerged relatively early. By contrast, the formation and development of ethnographic filmmaking in Vietnam occurred later than in many other countries.

The influence of American visual anthropology on Vietnamese visual anthropology can initially be seen through the impact of major funding agencies. Notably, the role of large foundations (such as Ford and Rockefeller) has been instrumental in fostering the integration and development of ethnographic filmmaking in Vietnam. The first visual anthropology project funded by the Ford Foundation was the production “Chuyện rối Tày làng Thẩm Rộc” (The Story of Tay Puppetry in Tham Roc Village). This project marked the first instance of foreign (American) experts participating in the filming process, sound design, training in ethnographic film-making techniques, and content editing. A group of researchers from the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology took part in the project, thereby gaining new knowledge and perspectives on ethnographic film production. Between 2006 and 2011, the Ford Foundation continued to sponsor several major initiatives aimed at promoting ethnographic film and community-based video production in Vietnam. Two institutions in Hanoi, namely the Vietnam National Institute of Culture and Arts Studies and the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology, benefited directly from this support. Through these training programs, many young professionals from research institutes and universities were exposed to contemporary theories of ethnographic filmmaking, alongside practical skills including videography, sound recording, interviewing techniques, and film editing. These skills were applied in the production of films that addressed urgent contemporary social issues in Vietnam. Several of these films were subsequently screened at major international film festivals, garnering attention within both academic and visual anthropology communities. Between 2006 and 2011, the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology conducted a series of community-based film projects, including “Hà nội thời bao cấp” (Hanoi in the Subsidy Era), “Người Thái chúng tôi” (We the Thai People), “Lễ nhảy của người Dao ở Tham Vè” (The Dao Dance in Tham Ve), “Chuyện ở phố” (Stories of the city - voices of the People). In 2008 and 2010, the Vietnam National Institute of Culture and Arts Studies organized two training workshops in ethnographic filmmaking for ten participants. Films produced in these initiatives were showcased at international festivals such as Yunfest in Yunnan, China (2009, 2011), and the Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival in Japan [Nguyễn Trường Giang 2011].

Vietnamese visual anthropology has also been influenced by the documentary working methods of several Japanese filmmakers. From 2002 to 2005, the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology implemented a project entitled “Training, Research, and Documentation of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Ethnic Minorities in Vietnam”. This project was guided by researchers from Osaka University of Arts, University of Tokyo Communication Center, and Osaka University. Its primary aim was to train Vietnamese anthropologists in the documentation of musical traditions among several ethnic groups, including the Thai, Tay, Kho Mu, Dao, Cham, and Raglai communities in the northern highlands and central coastal regions of Vietnam. Through this project, two Vietnamese anthropologists, Nguyen Truong Giang and Pham Van Loi from the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology, completed professional training in Japan, where they learned editing techniques related to the musical traditions of the ethnic groups involved in the project.

Beyond the discussion above, visual anthropology in Vietnam has absorbed influences from Soviet and Russian visual anthropology in at least four key respects.

First and foremost are the theoretical contributions of Dziga Vertov, the renowned Russian filmmaker and later a leading figure in Soviet documentary cinema, whose theory of cinéma vérité has significantly shaped visual anthropology in Vietnam. Vertov’s approach to cinéma vérité places particular emphasis on the interaction between the filmmaker (often also the researcher and camera operator) and the research subject (the character depicted in the film), with the aim of capturing cultural expression through communication and engagement in varied contextual settings.

In Russia, Dziga Vertov is regarded as a master who contributed to the creation of the Soviet documentary cinema school, with landmark films in the history of world cinema such as “A Symphony and Three songs of Lenin”. As early as the 1920s, this theorist asserted the primacy of kino-eye (cinema as the eye), arguing that the camera lens possessed a superior capacity for capturing images compared with the human eye. He rejected staged scenes, pre-written scripts, hired actors, and constructed film sets, instead advocating direct engagement with unique phenomena and the recording of the vivid and dynamic - what he considered the essence of newsreels and documentary films. Vertov also maintained that the camera produced special effects owing to its technical superiority. Consequently, he frequently employed montage to convey thematic intentions. For filmmakers who adhered to the kino-eye approach, the art of documentary filmmaking lay in the commentary (voice-over), subtitles, and film editing. Vertov demonstrated his distinctive documentary style through waiting, selecting, and capturing images incidentally; recording the vibrant events of everyday life; curating materials; connecting them; and creatively constructing new spatial and temporal dimensions. As a theorist, Vertov sought to elevate these creative methods into scientific laws.

 Since the 1950s, cinéma vérité (film truth) has flourished in France, most notably through the work of Jean Rouch. In the early 2000s, a film group known as Varant (a Belgian - French collaboration) conducted training in Vietnam for more than twenty documentary filmmakers, including several anthropologists. This training program resulted in the production of numerous films directly addressing anthropological themes.

Since the 1950s, cinéma vérité has developed strongly in France, represented by Jean Rouch. A distinct documentary filmmaking approach known as direct cinema was introduced by the Varan Film Association, which provided instruction and guidance in all stages of producing a documentary using synchronous, real-time image and sound recording techniques. This direct method has proven effective in evoking genuine emotions in the audience, enabling them to discover and cultivate empathy toward the characters and their unfolding stories. However, this approach requires the filmmaker to follow the character and the progression of events closely - an extremely demanding task, yet one that brings forth a sense of authenticity, seemingly capturing even the very breath of the subject [Lý Phương Dung 2011].

This direct filming technique originated during the Second World War, when filmmakers were required to work rapidly and complete all stages of production within extremely short timeframes. Nevertheless, it was not until the 1960s that this documentary movement truly emerged, owing to the advent of compact image-recording and sound-recording equipment. In 1981, the Varan Association was officially established in France and subsequently in several developing countries. It can be observed that the Varan school in France was also influenced by Dziga Vertov’s kino-eye method - the approach developed by the Russian master of documentary filmmaking. One of the principal challenges inherent in the direct filming technique lies in approaching and persuading the main character and surrounding individuals not to fear the camera. With this style of filmmaking, over the past two decades the Varan Association has organized a number of training workshops for Vietnamese documentary filmmakers. Several works have since been produced and have received awards for short films, such as “Trong phường Thành Công có làng Thành Công” (In Thanh Cong Ward, There is Thanh Cong Village - script and direction by Phan Thi Vang Anh), “Mặt trời màu gì?” (What Colour is the Sun? - script and direction by Dao Thanh Tung), and “Ước mơ làm công nhân”(Dreaming of Becoming a Worker - script and direction by Phuong Thao, awarded by the Vietnam Cinema Association). Other notable works include “Luôn ở bên con” (Always by My Child’s Side - script and direction by Nguyen Minh Hai, First Prize at the First Vietnam International Film Festival, Hanoi, October 2010) and “Người Hàng Sứ” (A Pottery Seller by Nguyen Truong Giang, Yamagata Film Festival, Japan, 2011).

Secondly, the dissemination of the Soviet school in Vietnam within ethnology, anthropology, and archaeology occurred both directly and indirectly. After Vietnam gained independence in 1945 and established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in 1950, the Soviet Union began providing extensive assistance to Vietnam, including military support, experts, scientific and technical cooperation, education, and training. This support enabled Vietnam both to wage the struggle against the United States for national reunification and to build socialism in the North [Nguyễn Văn Sửu 2019]. In this context, the most fundamental characteristics of Soviet ethnology were transmitted directly into Vietnam through multiple channels. The first channel was through Soviet experts sent to Vietnam. In the early 1960s, Associate Professor of Ethnology E. P. Buxughin was invited to assist the Faculty of History at the University of Hanoi in training personnel, developing curricula, preparing lectures, and teaching ethnology. At that time, the Faculty of History opened a training course for approximately thirty staff members and students specializing in ethnology. In the early 1970s, Professor S. I. Bruk, Deputy Director of the Institute of Ethnology of the Soviet Union, also came to Vietnam to deliver a series of lectures on ethnology, research experience and emerging trends, ethnodemography, and the ethnographic geography of ethnic groups at the Institute of Ethnology (Vietnam). A second channel of dissemination came through Vietnamese scholars trained in the Soviet Union, the most notable of whom was Professor Phan Huu Dat, who received systematic ethnological training at Lomonosov Moscow State University and later became Rector of the University of Hanoi. Subsequently, numerous doctoral candidates and interns received training in Soviet ethnology through coursework, supervision by Soviet professors, research materials, and participation in interdisciplinary scientific activities. A particularly valued resource among these doctoral candidates and interns was the Ethnographic Encyclopedia, edited by Professor Solomon Bruk, which contained a substantial body of photographs depicting ethnic groups of the Soviet Union. A third channel consisted of academic exchanges and cooperation between the two countries. From the 1970s onwards, leaders of the Institute of Ethnology (Vietnam) engaged in regular exchanges with ethnologists of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, including Professor Dang Nghiem Van, Professor Mac Duong, Professor Be Viet Dang, and Associate Professor Nguyen Van Huy. These exchanges primarily concerned the historical origins and ethnogenesis of ethnic groups in Vietnam, the social organization of ethnic minorities in the Central Highlands, Marxist perspectives in ethnology, and the Soviet tradition of expanding interdisciplinary relations, particularly with Professor S. A. Kotb, Professor M. G. Levin, and Professor N. N. Cheboksarov. Another means of disseminating the Soviet school in ethnology and anthropology was through the introduction of Soviet literature into Vietnam. During wartime, scientific materials were extremely scarce, and access to international ethnological research was highly limited. However, at that time, the library of the Institute of Ethnology in Hanoi held a substantial collection of Soviet ethnological works translated from Russian into Vietnamese. Notable examples included “Primitive Culture” by M. O. Kosven; “Economic–Cultural Types and Ethnohistorical Regions” by Cheboksarov; and, in particular, “Fieldwork Methods” by Gromov, which provided instruction on drawing, measuring, and photography—techniques fundamental to visual anthropology. It could be said that through Soviet experts, direct study and training in the Soviet Union, academic exchange, and the circulation of literature directly related to the Soviet ethnological and anthropological school, Vietnamese ethnologists and anthropologists in the early 1960s became strongly influenced by Soviet ethnographic fieldwork approaches. These approaches centered on participant observation as a key methodological tool, combined with the use of film and photography to collect data, document cultural diversity, and produce short ethnographic films. Since the late 1990s, Vietnamese ethnologists have similarly applied this approach in their research on ethnic minority communities in Vietnam.

Thirdly, the six-stage filmmaking process (as outlined above) systematized by Dziga Vertov has exerted considerable influence on filmmakers, including visual anthropologists in Vietnam. Notably, institutions such as the Vietnam National Institute of Culture and Arts Studies, the Institute of Cultural Studies (formerly the Institute of Folklore Studies), the Institute of Ethnology, and the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology have incorporated visual anthropology into their training programs and established centers for photographic and video documentation.

Thirdly, the six-stage filmmaking process summarized by Dziga Vertov includes: careful observation; immersion in the life of local people; arranging scenes in a logical and clearly oriented sequence; flexibly identifying suitable camera positions; structuring the film’s sequences and determining any additional scenes required; evaluating the filmed footage; and editing the film in a logical order to highlight its central theme. It could be said that this filmmaking process has had a significant impact on filmmakers, including visual anthropologists in Vietnam. At the two Ethnographic and Anthropological Film Festivals held in Hanoi (Vietnam) in 2003 and 2005, many films were produced in this style- for instance, “Hội giá phục hồi và phát triển” (directed by Nguyen Truong Giang) and “Đám ma khô của người Chăm” (directed by Hoang Son). Institutions engaged in research and teaching - such as the Vietnam National Institute of Culture and Arts Studies, the Institute of Cultural Studies (formerly the Institute of Folklore Studies), the Institute of Ethnology, and the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology - now have teams specializing in visual anthropology, capable of producing films and developing centers for photographic and video documentation.

Finally, the stylistic conventions of portrait photography - emphasizing anthropological and cultural markers such as attire and adornment among Vietnam’s ethnic minority groups from the 1960s through the 1990s - can be traced to photographic practices developed by Soviet ethnographers. These practices included full-body and half-body portraits, taken from both front and rear angles, with meticulous attention to facial features and clothing details of the research subject. This photographic style is evident in ethnographic monographs on specific ethnic groups produced by both the Russian Museum of Ethnography and the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology.

Conclusion

Visual anthropology in the Russian Federation today, as well as during the earlier Soviet period, has undergone clearly delineated stages of development and has attained significant achievements. As a member of the socialist bloc, Vietnam’s visual anthropology has likewise been influenced by the visual anthropological traditions of both the former Soviet Union and the contemporary Russian Federation. Within this context, Vietnamese visual anthropology has absorbed influences, both direct and indirect, from the Soviet school. These influences are most evident in theoretical frameworks, fieldwork approaches, the six-stage filmmaking process, and portrait photography practices. These aspects represent enduring contributions of Soviet visual anthropology, which continue to be manifest in the practice of visual anthropology in Vietnam.

¹ Asen Balikci not only played a pivotal role in organizing the film festival, but also subsequently contributed to the development of visual anthropology in the Russian Federation.

About the authors

Truong Giang Nguyen

Author for correspondence.
Email: truonggiang@vnu.edu.vn

Ph.D. in History, Associate Professor, Senior Lecturer and Dean, Faculty of Anthropology and Religious Studies

Thanh Lich Hoang

Email: lichht@vnu.edu.vn
ORCID iD: 0009-0009-2644-5650

Lecturer, Faculty of Political Science

References

Supplementary files

¹ This research paper is solely funded by VNU University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Hanoi, under project number USSH.2025.09.