In this blog post, I will examine the significance of ethnographic cinema and its relationship to documentaries and feature films, focusing on director Nikita Mikhalkov’s ‘Urga’. I also aim to explore the film’s ethnographic characteristics and dramatic elements as it portrays the lives and customs of Mongolian nomads.

What Is Ethnographic Cinema?

Since all films deal with human beings—and the better a film is, the deeper its understanding of humanity—it can be said that the medium of film inherently possesses certain ethnographic characteristics. However, simply possessing these characteristics does not mean every film can be called ethnographic cinema. Nevertheless, I believe that films we can still call ethnographic cinema are not limited to those serving merely as supplementary records for academic ethnography.
If we can define ethnographic film as a genre, we will find films that exhibit strong ethnographic tendencies, given the medium’s nature of constantly evolving, blending with other genres, and developing. Here, I will explore such possibilities regarding ethnographic film and examine Nikita Mikhalkov’s ‘Urga’ as an example.
In the strictest sense, “ethnographic film” refers to supplementary visual materials recorded based on a series of specific academic findings—such as research papers or books—conducted and studied by anthropologists. These are filmed by anthropologists themselves, and even if shot by a cinematographer, the anthropologist must remain the person ultimately responsible for the film.
If that were the case, the films we could call “ethnographic films” would be nothing more than records seen only in university lecture halls or research laboratories. It would be more accurate to refer to such materials—for which the term “ethnographic footage” is more appropriate—as the entirety of ethnographic cinema. However, even when considering the iconic ethnographic film ‘Nanook of the North’, we cannot restrict it to being solely a film produced by an anthropologist.
Not only was Robert Flaherty not a professional anthropologist, but even if we fully acknowledge his anthropological qualities as an explorer, this work was not created on the premise of professional research. Furthermore, when we watch ‘The Arrival of a Train’, a film shot so long ago that it can now be considered a historical record, there is no basis for claiming that it is not ethnographic. The same applies to another film, ‘Workers Leaving the Factory’, shot by a pair of European inventor brothers.

Ethnographic Film, Documentary, and Feature Film

Another common misconception regarding ethnographic film is its confusion with the documentary. While these two genres are not the same, they are not entirely mutually exclusive either. It would be more accurate to say that they represent different criteria.
Because documentaries are more widely known and familiar to the general public, ethnographic films are often mistaken for documentaries dealing with specific subjects; this misunderstanding leads to the belief that ethnographic films demand nothing but the unadulterated truth, free from any manipulation of content. However, ethnographic films are not, like documentaries, uncontrolled records of reality; rather, they are a medium designed to better understand reality with a specific purpose in mind.
Therefore, ethnographic films sometimes reenact customs that are now forgotten, use scripts, or employ various techniques to achieve visual impact. Even the surviving version of ‘Nanook of the North’ was intentionally reshot after the original documentary was lost; to better show the interior of an igloo, a half-igloo larger than the actual one was constructed for filming. This can be considered a form of set design.
Essentially, ethnographic films are not created by recording something as it happens and then editing it together; rather, they involve selecting and filming material with a direction already set by specific findings derived from research. Just as scientists use selected samples to draw conclusions, and just as there are historical facts uncovered by historians that we have not witnessed firsthand, it is difficult to claim that the images captured in ethnographic films are distortions of reality or pure fiction.
The characteristics of ethnographic cinema—selection and direction aimed at better understanding—will facilitate its integration with narrative film. As we saw in the comparison with documentary film, ethnographic cinema and narrative film cannot be viewed as mutually exclusive genres. The question is how well a film, even if produced as a narrative film, demonstrates ethnographic characteristics in its content and form.
For example, although Jean-Jacques Annaud’s ‘Quest for Fire’ is a thoroughly staged work, it can be classified as an ethnographic film about primates because it addresses human issues and presents them realistically through historical accuracy and the training of the actors. In this regard, provided the focus remains on humanity, documentaries about animals could also constitute excellent examples of ethnographic film. A prime example is ‘Baboons of Gombe’, which explores the power dynamics among the chimpanzees studied by Jane Goodall.
Thus, it can be said that what ethnographic films should address are the specific cultural and anthropological behaviors commonly shared by a given group. This is clearly reflected in the titles of various ethnographic films, such as ‘Song of Ceylon’, ‘Dani Sweet Potato’, ‘Karba’a’s First Years’, and ‘Wedding of Palo’.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the subject must be depicted as a group or through collective actions. As long as it effectively represents ethnographic behavior—whether through a single family or individual, as in ‘Nanook of the North’ or ‘The Bushmen’—or through traditional patterns of indigenous peoples, as studied by Lévi-Strauss in ‘Tristes Tropiques’, it suffices.

‘Urga’ as an Ethnographic Film

This film is undoubtedly a feature film. It clearly had a director who employed conventional feature film techniques and a specific screenplay, and the director’s intent is clearly evident in several fantastical scenes and plot elements. However, the ethnographic characteristics of this film serve as a good example of how a feature film can become a subject of ethnographic reference and how an ethnographic film can achieve aesthetic success within the genre of feature film.
This film depicts the story of a nomadic family set against the backdrop of the Mongolian steppe. Throughout the film, the vast Mongolian steppe and the way of life of the nomads—who raise sheep and live self-sufficiently within it—are portrayed without embellishment.
The reason this film appears ethnographic is that it is thoroughly tailored to the lives of Mongolians, and it employs numerous devices to present their lives more effectively. The aspect that can be considered a fictional film is the structure of the events; however, the characters driving those events are rooted in reality itself. This is likely because, even if it was not the director’s direct intention or the central theme, it was an approach that had to be taken to express that theme, or because the film could not have been produced without this ethnographic foundation.

Similarities Between ‘Urga’ and ‘Nanook of the North’

We can better understand the ethnographic nature of this film by comparing it to ‘Nanook of the North’, the ethnographic film most readily accessible to us. These two films share striking similarities in their structure and plot.
First, the fact that a family serves as the main characters, along with the similarities in their lifestyles—namely, that of nomads and Eskimos—such as self-sufficiency, family-centered living, and their encounters with modern civilization, can be described as the archetype of ethnographic cinema, or even a genre-specific plot.
Specifically, ‘Nanook of the North’ features a journey to the moving river, while ‘Urga’ features a journey to China. The settings are rugged terrain and glaciers in one film, and vast grasslands in the other, while the modes of transportation are a boat and a horse, respectively. The prey hunted is the seal in ‘Nanook of the North’, from which meat and hides are obtained, and sheep in ‘Urga’, from which meat and hides are also obtained.
Similarities also emerge in the way the characters encounter civilization. In ‘Nanook of the North’, the characters encounter a phonograph, while in ‘Urga’, they explore the city. The protagonists are both heads of households, and their homes are an igloo and a ger, respectively—residential tents. Livestock includes sled dogs, herding horses, and dogs, while craft activities include making leather shoes and tanning hides. Tools featured include a knife made from a leopard’s fang and the ‘urga’.
In terms of customs, both films depict aspects of childbirth and child-rearing, as well as bird burials and child-rearing practices. As such, the two films share many parallels. Indeed, not only these two works but all ethnographic films inevitably showcase the unique customs and behaviors of the people they depict.
The question is how effectively and accurately these are portrayed; such elements must be planned in advance, and this is where one can discern the differences from documentaries and the similarities to feature films.

The Dramatic Elements and Ethnographic Characteristics of ‘Urga’

Of course, there are also differences between the two works, which stem primarily from technical aspects. While ‘Nanook of the North’ employs somewhat verbose narration, ‘Urga’ relies more on traditional music, natural sounds influenced by the climate, and, crucially, a plot.
The use of these dramatic elements demonstrates that ethnographic films and feature films can blend and transform at the genre level, and it confirms that these various devices can better highlight ethnographic characteristics.
A key device used in ‘Urga’ to bring out the protagonist’s various facets is the appearance of the outsider, Sergei. The film is divided into two parts by Sergei’s arrival: the first half depicts the everyday customs characteristic of nomads, while the second half showcases their unique traditions.
In the first half, we gain insight into the Mongolians’ living arrangements, family structures, self-sufficient lifestyles, various handicrafts, meals, and even their sex lives; the fact that they are portrayed as a single family serves as a representative sample of people of various ages and genders.
In the second half, we witness their hospitality toward guests, their reactions to the new civilizations of China and the Soviet Union, their spiritual world as portrayed in fantasy, their friendships, and even the current situation in Mongolia.
While these are unique aspects of the subjects being ethnographically documented, they actively reflect their environment and circumstances. Therefore, these diverse situations are highly helpful in understanding them, and I believe this dramatic structure has a significant impact.

Exploring the Potential of Ethnographic Cinema in Other Films

Although there aren’t many films that possess such strong ethnographic characteristics despite being fictional—that is, films that could be called “ethnographic films” if we do not apply overly strict criteria—they can still be found.
While some of these films offer a unique perspective on familiar subjects—such as people in major cities or American society—their ethnographic nature typically places them against the backdrop of specific environments, harsh realities, and intense conflicts. In this regard, it is no coincidence that films from regions experiencing political or economic turmoil are often classified as ethnographic films; the works of director Bahman Ghobadi, which deal with ethnic minorities such as the Kurds, are prime examples.
‘Turtles Can Fly’ depicts Kurdish boys caught in the midst of war, while ‘Time for Drunken Horses’ focuses on Kurds engaged in smuggling along the border. Although these films, like ‘Urga’, contain a certain degree of dramatic elements, if these are viewed as devices to reveal ethnographic insight, they can certainly be regarded as ethnographic films.
Above all, these films capture the vivid reality of the present, and the protagonists and events depicted are reenactments and reconstructions of reality; they cannot be dismissed as fiction simply because they are performed by actors and directed by a filmmaker.

Conclusion

We have thus examined the genre’s potential as ethnographic cinema and explored ‘Urga’ as an example. The active use of dramatic elements in ethnographic cinema should not be viewed merely from the perspective of a narrative film; rather, it should be seen as an extension of the interpretive functions—such as narration and editing—used in early ethnographic films.
This can be viewed as a step forward in terms of greater naturalness and effectiveness, and such developments in ethnographic cinema will free the genre from constraints—such as the requirement that it be premised on ethnographic research—allowing audiences to enjoy it simply as a film.