The Marigold Trail: A Study of Robert Gardner’s Forest of Bliss (1985) SURYANANDINI SINHA Robert Gardner’s landmark film Forest of Bliss (1985) spawned much criticism and debate in the domain of visual an- thropology, articulated through a spate of writing during the years 1988–89 in the Society for Visual Anthropology Newsletter. Two decades later, multiple possibilities of interpreting this film enliven it with the same questions and more, even as the timeless city of Banaras remains consistent in its visual vocabulary in an India of the 21st century. This essay explores the symbolic nature of materiality that imbues everyday living in the holy city, articulated in Gard- ner’s ethnographic understanding through the visual narrative that it weaves. Several recurrent motifs, such as the marigold flower, saturate this visual document with points of entry that open pathways of reading and interpretation, confirming Gardner’s pioneering initiative within methodology and technique in visual anthropology. [Key words: aesthetics in ethnographic films, Robert Gardner, symbols] The answer is neither masochism or sadism, but true love. And what is the epistemological equivalent of true love? It is dialogue. Truth does not belong to the subject nor to the object, it is not a monologue from one to the other. Rather, truth emerges in dialogue and it is a product of this interchange. Truth is there as an orienting concept . . . which is indispensable to a form of life which includes mu- tual criticism with reference to a ‘‘state of affairs.’’ The concept of reality is ineffable to this concept of truth, but nevertheless ‘‘reality’’ is indispensable to certain practice: that of the mutual adjustment of our cognitive orientation. Tord Larsen (1992) K arl Heider (1976) discusses the way that ethnog- raphers ‘‘subscribe’’ to the truth, but do not necessarily ‘‘advocate’’ it. They can ‘‘comfortably take the artist’s position so that they manipulate reality through a series of falsehoods in order to create a higher truth’’ (1976:11), thereby justifying their chosen (artistic) vocabularies as a means to a larger end. Larsen in his es- say on ‘‘The Aesthetic Turn’’ has greater sympathy for the use of metaphors in the vocabulary of ethnographic film, and propagates that art inherently ‘‘produces the terrain it examines’’ (1992:17). Indeed, pioneers in alternative lan- guages of ethnographic filming such as Robert Gardner have both comprehended and presented reality through metaphors, and have been questioned for their particular ‘‘cognitive orientation’’ that fit and misfit with that of recipient audiences. The following essay examines ques- tions regarding the mutual exclusion or compatibility between ethnography and art in presenting truth value in anthropological practices, by considering the example of filmic devices used in Robert Gardner’s much-critiqued film, Forest of Bliss (1985). In full color and with a running time of 90 minutes, the film is structured to grant preeminence to pictorial representation, without subtitles, voice-over narration, or background score. It shows the sacred and profane aspects of life in the Indian city of Banaras as the se- quence of frames appears to follow the activities of men, animals, and material objects in the span of a day from sunrise to sunset. Weaving together the routine activities of different characters are recurrent symbolsFboth as visual motifs and rhythmic soundFthat recur to remind the viewers of the cyclical nature of life and death, and lend cogency to seemingly random events. What incites analysis is Gardner’s fundamental approach to the eth- nography of a much-studied city and culture, and the repercussions that his filmic style has had on the world of visual anthropology and cinema alike. Questions from several quarters regarding the validity, anthropological accuracy, or indeed the success of Gardner’s work reach a crescendo with Forest of Bliss, feeding the debate that revolves around the possible complementary versus competitive relations between the film’s aesthetic and Visual Anthropology Review, Vol. 25, Issue 1, pp. 40–48, ISSN 1058-7187, online ISSN 1548-7458. & 2009 by the American Anthropological Association. DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-7458.2009.01008.x.