Some comments about “Morte a Vignale”
First, it is weird to say that at TAG an archaeologist asked me not for the footage but for the effects of being a digger with a camera in his hands.
“Did your archaeological mind change because of recording on fieldwork?”
“Yes and no. Yes because I need to be ready for recording any interesting episode can happen during the excavation. No because I have to dig the same, there’s no sense in walking with a camera without any scope, I’m an archaeologist, not a director.”
I would answer the same today. I could add that walking around the site recording the hypothesis of the others have helped me to collect the basis for the story I was going to write.
Some younger students of archaeology were really hot for the docudrama:
“It’s one of the best way in order to arouse the interest of people for archaeology!”
“I notice that the archaeologists who act in the docudrama seem to be very involved in the fiction. This is a good point because it balances the non-professional quality of the production.”
“It gives a boost to people for visiting the site.”
“I like a lot the double register, the archaeological fieldwork and its re-enactment. It facilitates me to understand how you work in Vignale.”
Others of them were more critical:
“Maybe you could take more care of stage costumes; in my opinion they could make the re-enactment more realistic.”
“The plot is sometime difficult to understand, even if at the end you manage to reassemble all the pieces.“
The most difficult audience are the relatives: some of them had difficulty in understanding the passage from fieldwork to its interpretation and re-enactment but all in all they liked “Morte a Vignale”.
I know that this footage could be better, even directing skills, costumes, script, audio etc could be better. But thinking about we didn’t pay any Euro and that we recorded it in two afternoon, all the people that saw it (300 until now) and all these comments show that the work has been worthwhile indeed.
“Thank you for this imaginative and just how I see the process of archaeological thought.” (BAJR)